Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 30

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise centres in Ireland (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 falls outside of project scope and notability guidelines. In terms of the project's notability criteria, the concept of "Enterprise Centres in Ireland" does not seem to meet expectations (in that, apart from the bodies set-up to promote the concept, I can find no independent/reliable/non-promotional/main-stream sources which discuss the concept - either in news outlets or academic sources). And, in terms of the project's scope guidelines, the tone here is overtly promotional, largely represents a linkfarm, and generally doesn't seem to be recoverable (it has been tagged for cleanup for 4 or more years and hasn't been cleaned-up in the normal run of things). While I had considered perhaps a move/redirect to a title discussing the "National Association of Community Enterprise Centres", I cannot find enough secondary sources which cover this organisation. And the organisation's own website seems to be "down" for some time. In short, I don't think this article meets the project's notability criteria or scope criteria - and is generally not adding any value to the reader or the project. Guliolopez (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTLINKFARM and completely non notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of reliable independent sources supporting it FOARP (talk) 12:42, 5 November 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. bd2412 T 19:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Community Health Centre (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)

Advertorialized article about a local health care organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published primary source content about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it. As always, organizations like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must be referenced well enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent (beyond very local coverage) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I'm not finding independent coverage. A shame so much work went into this but it just doesn't appear notable enough. Ifnord (talk) 15:30, 7 November 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. Consensus that ARTIST and ANYBIO are satisfied with other problems partially removed by clean-up (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Boswell (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)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but article needs cleanup or TNT to change it form a CV to a wiki article, and remove endless trivia. She has been active lately and received news coverage, such as this in the Standard: "Phoebe Boswell, an artist in residence at Somerset House, has worked specifically on the female nude, recasting it as a site of power and heroism. Each of her recent series of full-sized portraits, For Every Real Word Spoken, sees a mature woman ‘standing, facing out, naked, taking her own selfie, returning your gaze.’ The women are given a voice through a QR code drawn into the portraits.", and this long profile in the Brooklyn Rail. I found those easily by searching Google news for Phoebe Boswell". There were several other results.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the refs in the article are of no use, of the two refs offered above the brooklynrail link is maybe ok, the standard link isn't in depth, I will reconsider if better refs are forthcoming, but for now this is failing WP:V. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is plenty of coverage in the last couple of years. The article needs updating to include: that she received the $20,000 Special Prize by the Future Generation Art Prize at the 2017 Venice Biennale; a review in the Financial Times in May this year; an interview in the magazine Contemporary & in April 2017; an article in the Huffington Post in April 2017; a review in November 2017 in Nka (A Journal of Contemporary African Art); four paragraphs about her in a review of a group show of 13 artists in the African Mail&Guardian in May 2017; an interview with her in the journal Mixed Race Studies in April 2017 - as well as the others mentioned by ThatMontrealIP. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have updated the article with more recent exhibitions and reviews, and the awards she has won. It could do with more work, but I hope it is enough to show that this artist meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Academy Arts Scholarship is pretty prominent and so therefore meets 1. of WP:ANYBIODavidstewartharvey (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO due to the award and the sources added by RebeccaGreen show that this is a keep. JC7V-talk 15:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have just created the page Sky Academy Arts Scholarship and during my research Phoebe was the first recepient of the award - I have update her page accordingly.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:58, 5 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Bangard (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 individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of independent notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there appears to be no significant coverage of her in Indian newspapers, the list of 50 most influential women she was included in is for women in the Media, Marketing & Advertising industry only, and the Super Achiever Award (one of 31 that year) also appears to be an industry award. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like an unremarkable businesswoman. Deb (talk) 16:19, 5 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, WP:GNG, no in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Provided sources are all press releases or blogs.

• [1] Is a Forbes contributor post, which are not considered RS
• [2] is a press release
• [3] is a kickstarter page
• [4] is a blog, albeit possibly a reliable one, but the article is mostly about Manhwa, not TappyToon and by itself does not satisfy WP:ORGCRITE.

Previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by article creator. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Bleeding Cool (as listed) is a reliable source. Another source I was able to find is e27, but I am unfamiliar with the website. Other sources are indeed primary sources, such as press releases and blog posts. It's not the strongest deletion case ever, but the sourcing is just too sparse. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete - This is an important publisher of translated webtoons and one of only two with the other being Spottoon. They are the only two companies that license webtoons and translate them into English. Deleting this page would be like deleting Marvel, DC Comics, Dark Horse, or Yen Press. This page uses the same type of sources as the one for Spottoon which has been around longer than TappyToon's. I genuinely don't see a valid reason to delete this page since the claims made earlier about all the sources being from press releases were wrong. AquilaXIII (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "other stuff exists"-argument mainly just makes me look at our Spottoon article. It uses The Korea Herald and Observer.com, which I think are considered reliable (and independent) sources. The sourcing there is pretty weak too, though. Comparing these two websites with Marvel and DC certainly seems silly, as pretty much everyone in the world knows of those two companies at this point. Surely the notability doesn't really compare. Regardless, no one has claimed that all of the sources are press releases. A few of them are blogs, which are also typically not considered reliable. What we're mainly interested in are articles written completely independently from the subject and published by a publisher that employs (typically paid) experts in the field and had an editorial policy. If you find one more source that is anything like that, I would honestly be happy to reconsider, as I generally find three sources just barely enough to write an article on. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 05:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admittedly did accuse all of the sources of being press releases when I originally nominated for PROD because I mis-evaluated the blog. That was a mistake and I don't intend to represent the sources as such in this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 15:31, 7 November 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. Sandstein 19:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Forces (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:COMPANY. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY. Ifnord (talk) 15:33, 7 November 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. A poor discussion that may need to be repeated. I have to discount the first two "delete"s for being pure votes (despite Nosebagbear's relisting comment), and the second keep as far outside policy; what matters are the sources and they are not adequately discussed here. Sandstein 08:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Patcher (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)

Sources are not reliable or don't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews, as they are narrowly focused or not published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications. Fails to meet WP:N. Ping MER-C and 404House as participants of prev AfD and SchmuckyTheCat as refund requester. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the previous nomination. MER-C 10:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion remains the same, same reasoning. Delete. 404House (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  • Multiple reliable third party sources
  • Sources point out popularity within it's class and utility for it's class.
  • That's enough for an article.
  • A quick news/books check on SearchResultsMegacorp reveals more less than stellar but more than adequate instructional and advice pieces from mainstream publications since the last deletion.
  • Rant I expected to find an article for this software earlier in the week. I figured Wikipedia would have reliable info and points to the actual source given how popular it is. We've got plenty of articles for absolutely forgetabble iPod games from ten years ago that have less sourcing and no claim to notability. I mean, ffs, there's an article on Kingoroot which is outright malicious. Lucky Patcher is a grey use hack tool that requires a rooted Android. It can be used for Android optimization or for avoiding payments and cheating. As a grey use tool, it's banned from being mentioned on places like XDA, and probably isn't going to find a lot of mainstream attention, but it's found some and that's enough to keep. Personally I find it indispensable on a rooted Android. It's very notable within that community and judging by the questions I get asked regularly on Quora every idiot discovers it because they think it'll help them cheat the game of the week. It has more users than most of the garbage software reviewed from blogs and adbait sites (*cough* being on C-Net is not a notability claim) that Wikipedia is full of.
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Multiple reliable third party sources and A quick news/books check on SearchResultsMegacorp reveals more less than stellar but more than adequate instructional and advice pieces SchmuckyTheCat could you link to those sources that you consider adequate under WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS? Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  • When seeking software that is not supported in mainstream 'stores' it is difficult to locate the appropriate, safe original creator. I rely on wikipedia at times to provide information on various subjects such as this and believe that this article on Lucky Patcher is quite helpful, accurate and should not be deleted.
• blombardo1976 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2018 (EST) — blombardo1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• See WP:WHYN for why we require indepth coverage to have an article, and Lucky Patcher does not appear to have that coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and failing notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCT. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise. I smell a sock with the SPA keep vote, the previous AfD was closed as a delete for failing notability guidelines. That really hasn't changed with this article. I would advocate closing this as well. Ifnord (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment
  • Digital Journal is used greater than 500 times (the limit of my query) in Wikipedia references. Digital Journal has multiple articles on Lucky Patcher.
  • techleash.com is reputable enough for WP to report on itself, Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-07/In the news and has multiple articles on Lucky Patcher.
  • techstory.in is used greater than 500 times as a reference on WP, and has coverage on Lucky Patcher. This is one of a few: [5]
• so anyway, what's that argument about not covered in sources again? Especially because these sources indicate ongoing coverage over time this makes any statements like "per my last !vote" irrelevant because it means those editors aren't considering new coverage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither techleash.com nor techstory.in appear to have articles about them. I looked and they appear bloggy. Your zeal and suspected use of WP:SOCK appears to indicate a conflict of interest. Have you disclosed this? Ifnord (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock. lolz. Puhleaz, son, conflict of interest, oh yeah, totally, I must be the Lucky Patcher dev.

wtf do I care if the sources have articles? They are used as references. If they are used as references on 500 other articles to establish notability, then you can't come and say they don't establish notability here. Who's on first? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid on AfD include WP:WHATABOUTX. Looking simply at this article alone, the references are poor and the subject has not garnered enough sustained coverage to meet the notability criteria for WP:PRODUCT. Ifnord (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Ifnord said. Also, sources can be used as references yet not establish notability. Sources need to be independent and be for a broad audience to help establish notability; so even if the sources are reliable they may not establish notability. (also searching insource:"techstory.in" finds only 36 uses in articles, and there is no indication that source is being used to justify notability in those other articles.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 10 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud (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:V, GNG, GEOLAND. The tribal name is Kunud (Singular Kindi) but it's a tribal name, not a settlement or recognised area or region. And even then, this is spelled incorrectly and full of unsourced information general to the whole East Coast of the UAE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have an article at Kunud. If this is just an error for that, then delete. SpinningSpark 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on everything else this guy has created.Natureium (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:V. This is totally unsourced, except for a vague assertion that it's in a book, with no details. More disturbing is the assertion that this might be just a typo (or, more probably, alternate transliteration) of Kunud. Looking at the two articles, I have no way to prove or disprove the assertion. For an encyclopedia which holds WP:V above all else, that's a serious problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 9 November 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 Energy rate density. There are convincing arguments that unsourced and contested content shouldn't be merged. The redirect allows the merging from history of any content for which reliable sources can be found. Sandstein 08:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (energy flow density) (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)

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. There is no article for Energy flow density, and I can't find reliable sources discussing the list items as a group or set with respect to the term "energy flow density". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 10:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Orders of magnitude (energy rate density), per the article at Energy rate density. This seems to be the intended topic of the table under a different name. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Energy rate density. On second thought, this is a fairly limited table of data that could help beef up the target. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Unsourced messes can't be merged anywhere esp. to a topic that's not same. Pending that, an article on EFD can be created (and which may house a list like this one, shall it be sourced), which is actually far notable than ERD.∯WBG^converse 19:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, EFD can be easily covered at Energy Flow. Nothing to create and nothing to merge,atleast from here.∯WBG^converse 19:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has the potential to be improved to a more comprehensive list (see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH). —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Energy rate density as useful examples. Praemonitus (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Praemonitus, merge what? Some unsourced/synthesised stuff?! ∯WBG^converse 09:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above, of those items for which sourcing can be found; that would be a win for the merge target too. BTW, top three entries may be sourcable to this: . --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 6 November 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)} 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda S. Reeves (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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Out of the seven total sources in the article, five are primary, which do not establish notability, and the remaining two do not provide significant coverage about the subject:

• [6] – Has five very short sentences about the subject.
• [7] – has a name check and three short sentences.

WP:BEFORE source searches for independent, reliable sources are only providing quotations from the subject (which are primary), minor passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, primary sources found in source searches are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 18 October 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. Sandstein 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld (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 subject that fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Several WP:BEFORE searches have provided no evidence of notability; only a few name checks exist in independent, reliable sources; no significant coverage appears to exist. Cannot find any independent reviews of the subject's works in reliable sources either. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability, and primary sources found in searches also do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:ANYBIO nothing of any note found in a before search. GNG is not met. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:27, 7 November 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 earthquakes in New Zealand. Clear consensus that this doesn't merit a stand-alone article. I'm going to redirect this to List of earthquakes in New Zealand. Folks can continue to discuss inclusion criteria on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Opunake earthquake (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 to meet notability guidelines for earthquakes. (Yes, I am proposing deletion of an article I created.) Kiwi128 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Agree with nominator and article creator. This one has been on my list for deletion for some time due to lack of notability (no substantial effects). Please also remove the entry from List of earthquakes in New Zealand for the same reason. Dawnseeker2000 23:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dawnseeker2000: You may also be interested in this AfD discussion. Kiwi128 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of earthquakes in New Zealand; the threshold for inclusion there is lower than for a stand-alone article. I don't see any reason to support changing the "all earthquakes >6.0 magnitude" threshold on that page, and this isn't the correct forum to discuss that change in any event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Please post a link that supports the idea that there is a lower threshold for inclusion on the lists vs stand alone articles. The documentation should be from a member of WP:EARTHQUAKES. Also, the list problem is something that we have been working on for several years and this is a fine opportunity to discuss it. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 04:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with power~enwiki that 2012 Opunake earthquake should probably remain in List of earthquakes in New Zealand; also agree that this is not the place to decide that. Kiwi128 (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Move to List of earthquakes in New Zealand as above. Fails WP:GNG by itself NealeFamily (talk) 01:46, 2 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McIntyre (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 TV presenter, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find even WP:ROUTINE coverage of her, and nothing to suggest she passes WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know I've seen McIntyre on TV, however there doesn't seem any independent sources when I run searches. Govvy (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is out of date, as there are several shows she has appeared in which are not included - Police 5, The One Show, and The Wright Stuff - and most of the search results I find for her are in relation to those shows. Most are tabloid/celebrity papers, magazines, or websites. I think it's possible that she is well known - she presented children's shows over 5 years, and those children would now be in their 20s or 30s and seeing her again in the newer shows - but then, she doesn't seem to have been in many episodes of those recent shows, and the kind of sources she appears in are usually not considered reliable. So I don't know - I tend to Delete, I think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:ENT suggests that an entertainer is notable if she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Some of the projects that are mentioned in the article are notable, however, her roles in them are not significant. Some of her roles in other projects are significant, but the projects themselves don't appear to be notable. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is another "Kate McIntyre" on [IMDB] who appears to have a longer resume than this subject. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:04, 7 November 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. The only argument to keep is based largely on WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but that's just an essay; AfD is free to delete an article if editors feel doing so would improve the encyclopedia, and they clearly feel so here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm bringing this to AfD not because the subject is not notable, but because the entire article has been almost exclusively edited only by a long-term sock-farming COI user (SPI). Despite clean-up efforts by several editors, the article has always been plagued by COI and POV issues, which will have to be re-written from scratch if a non-COI editor decides to pick up writing about the subject. Until then, the COI article should not exist on Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sukavich Rangsitpol. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article's clearly a mess as it is, but it doesn't seem to be at the WP:TNT point quite yet. I've seen plenty of stuff in mainspace in worse shape than this article that's been readily cleaned up by other editors, I fail to see how this article is tremendously worse off than any other just due to previous COI editing. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Nathan2055. On the one hand, the subject is notable, but notability is only one criterion. On the other hand, this article is past the point where it can be fixed and is at the point where it needs to be blown up. Therefore:
• Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article may be an autobiography. One of the sockpuppets is User:Sukavich Rangsitpol s Daughter, and that is who the subject Thita Manitkul is. This is not in itself a reason to delete, just more of the case that it needs to be started over, not fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm struggling to see what's unfixable about this. At this point, most of what's still a mess looks stylistic rather than structural, so I'm just not seeing how this is so irreparably awful as to require the WP:TNT treatment. Like Nathan2055, I've also seen a lot of stuff in mainspace that was in much worse shape than this survive AFD on core notability grounds. Can the delete proponents be more specific about what they see as the remaining problems, I mean besides the "copyvio" that was clearly Facebook copying our text rather than vice versa? I'm not fundamentally opposed to the TNT treatment, I'm just yet to be convinced of why it's necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem I see is that the only person interested in editing this article is the sock-farming COI author. With no one else watching the article, even if it was cleaned up now it's wholly likely that the author will keep returning under new socks and turn the article back into a self-glorifying résumé. Deleting now would allow re-creations by socks to be G5'ed. If and when a neutral editor decides to write a proper article, at least then there will be someone maintaining it. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She is not notable person in Thailand even me who live in Thailand doesn't know who she is. If the page can still keep I think I can crete my profile in Wikipedia too or other people around the world can do it. This page is edit by her family include bias and unreference message. The important is she is not important to has her own Wikipedia page. Ministerboy (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Norwegian WP twin article have been stripped down to only two sources that might mention her, but they are in Thai so it has not been possible to check. All the other sources that was provided did not mention her name. This needs at least one reliable source proving that she actually have been an elected member of parliament. Whithout that the article does not seem notable. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 21:41, 5 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoonito (UK & Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, Fails NOTTVGUIDE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge current shows to Cartoonito (UK & Ireland)#Programming (or just describe a few in text in that article), delete the rest and this link, not needed. The Cartoonito article in itself is a mess. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would object to merging as all TV programmes tend to be deleted on main articles as well as on lists, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should refrain from listing every single television programme for a particular broadcaster (especially acquired from another network). However listing original programming is acceptable. Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a second look, it's really a hodge-podge of secondary rights that are shared with other networks, and even just individual series/seasons. Switching to delete per feedback. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yeah, it’s literally just an inaccurate lump of some shows that aired on the channel. Plus, I have noticed that it keeps getting vandalised. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's no use for it if underaged kids keep vandalising it. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:16, 2 November 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 speedy delete. CSD G7, more or less SpinningSpark 20:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Taumarunui earthquake (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 to meet significance according to the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) Stephen 22:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - When I created it, I thought that there was likely to be substantial damage or fatalities. As there were not, I think deletion is sensible. For that matter, we may also wish to consider deleting another article I started, 2012 Opunake earthquake. Kiwi128 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I have just nominated 2012 Opunake earthquake for deletion. Given that it is similar to this article, anyone who is interested in this conversation may also be interested in that one. Kiwi128 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just a heads up, I have nominated the 2008 Hastings earthquake for deletion. Sheldybett (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur that it doesn't meet the notability threshold for earthquakes. Schwede66 09:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable per WP:NEARTHQUAKE. Mikenorton (talk) 10:01, 31 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Talbot (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)

Cricket coach who hasn't been involved at a high level of the sport, so fails WP:NCRIC. Some sources, but mentioned in passing rather than being the subject of significant coverage himself; no indication he meets WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with User:Jellyman regarding WP:GNG LikeMeercats (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry for the tag - initially had the wrong user in there.
• Delete Does not pass WP:NCRIC nor WP:GNG and based on the username of the creator it may fall under WP:AUTO too: (Dazzlert = Darren T(albot)??). Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 19:49, 1 November 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 per consensus for lack of evidence for notability or reality. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Al Saud (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)

Possible hoax. I cannot find any son of Mashhur bin Abdulaziz Al Saud by that name mentioned in here...and the source they give in the article is about his cousin, Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one source doesn't even mention Rashid. Even if this weren't a hoax, there is no reliable coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources to show notability. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:34, 7 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pratisaad - The Response (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)

Also nominating:

Yogesh Dattatraya Gosavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I came across these articles via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorry (2017 film) (2nd nomination). All these articles have a history of socks, and most of the content cant be verified. Because of hoax of "Gadbad Gondhal", I have reasons to believe the "Sorry (2017)" is a hoax as well.

Pratisaad - The Response
This film fails general notability guidelines, as there is not significant coverage in the reliable sources. The film's only claims to the notability were participation in two film festivals, and an award won at one of them.

The article claims that the film was screened at Toronto International Film Festival 2010. This is a blatant lie, as it was not screened in 2010, and just to make sure neither in 2011

The article also claims that the film won "Best Feature Film on Social Issue (Special Award)" at "Dadasaheb Phalke Film Festival Award 2010", which again is blatant lie; as the film festival was established in the year 2011.

That makes the film fail WP:NFILM. As it already fails general notability guidelines, it doesnt deserve an article.

Gadbad Gondhal
First of all, this film fails WP:GNG, and WP:NFILM by all the means. The troubling thing about that film is, as of 2017, it was claimed the film is "upcoming movie", but the one of the major actor of the film Anand Abhyankar has already died. Back in Dec 2012. According to some sources, the movie was released in 2012; and according to some sources, it was 2013. Yet, the article states the release date as July 27, 2018.

In any case, this film fails WP:GNG, and WP:NFILM.

Yogesh Dattatraya Gosavi
This brings us to the director of the aforementioned three films (including Sorry (2017 film)). Just like most of the information in these articles is false, most of the information from Gosavi's article can not be verified. The article claims that he has directed, written, and edited three films. All of which are now at AfD. With the explanation provided above for the two films, it is clear that this director fails WP:DIRECTOR. He also fails WP:GNG. I believe all these articles of three films, and Ambarnath Film Festival were created just so Gosavi could have his article.

I hereby nominate these three articles (Pratisaad - The Response, Gadbad Gondhal, and Yogesh Dattatraya Gosavi for deletion. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all three as there are hoax concerns that are proven and in any case they do not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nominator's analysis is convincing. Appear to be hoax. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just because some possible errors have been found in the articles does not make them lies (which are deliberate deceptions). For example, you claimed that the film having won an award is a lie because the festival was established in 2011, however, the source given is archived here [8], whether they are different awards or someone wrote the sentence wrong does not make it a deliberate lie. There are also other archived sources on the film - [9][10]. Hzh (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hzh: Hi. Phalke award, and Phalke film festivals are two different things. The source you provided is about the awards. The source says Makers of films with commercial values like ‘Rita’, ‘Hello Gandhe Sir’, social values like ‘Umang’, ‘Pratisaad’, ‘Janm’ and those films with rural backdrop like ‘Gosht Dongraevdhi’, ‘Urus’ were also felicitated along with films like ‘Ajoba Vayat Aale’, ‘Kamapurta Vima’, ‘Baap Manus’, and ‘Konti Bayko Karu’ which received a special mention. The film nor the director didn't get any award. And without that award, it still fails both the guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read "Pratisaad [...] were also felicitated" to mean the film was awarded, otherwise the article would not make any sense. Whatever that news article may mean, it would read like the sentence in this article was poorly worded and badly sourced rather than a deliberate lie. As for the specific award, there are probably sources in Marathi for the awards, which you would be better placed to search for. Hzh (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nominator. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I checked the ref cited in Pratisaad - The Response that it had won "Best Feature Film on Social Issue (Special Award)" at "Dadasaheb Phalke Film Festival Award 2010". The ref does say it was "Felicitated" there, but it does not say it won that (or any other specifically named) award. I removed the claim from the article. DMacks (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me the article use "felicitated" to mean "awarded", otherwise the article doesn't make sense. Hzh (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @DMacks: First Phalke award was awarded in 1969. First Phalke film festival took place in 2011. This a list of the Phalke award winners. None of the subjects of AfD are there. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They only give a single award a year? Just curious, also a bit confused, because the 2010 winner was not mentioned in the archived article (it also used the plural in "awards"). Hzh (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the actual award ceremony referred to in the archived source - Dadasaheb Marathi Chitrapatr Mahotsav-2010 ? Hzh (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Hi. Kindly look at 0:43. Throughout the video, posters (hardcopies) related to Indian National Congress can be seen. At 0:03 one can see hard copy photo (not on screen) of Soniya Gandhi. I cant be sure what it is, but it is definitely neither Phalke awards, nor the festival. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does appear to be another award, which I assume was televised from that clip. I think whoever that wrote that part in the article simply made a mistake. Hzh (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have believed it was a mistake, but after looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivan Disouza; I cant. I mean, I am all in for assuming good faith, but in this case I can't. Ivan is the director himself. Just a week ago, a sock accused Tiven of COI. And to prove that they edited IMDB. Dadasaheb Phalke Award is very big deal. The chances of mistakes are zero here. There was no way somebody thought this movie won the Phalke award. And we know the festival started in 2011. Whoever did it, did it deliberately. Before creating this bundled AfD, I spent something like 3 hours (in two days) to search about everything. I came across a few accounts on YouTube which I think is the director again. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote it did not claim that the film won that Phalke award (of which only one appears to be given per year), but another one - Best Feature Film on Social Issue of the Dadasaheb Phalke Film Festival Award. The full name of the award seems to be Dadasaheb Phalke Marathi Chitrapat Mahotsav, what does "Chitrapat Mahotsav" means? Was it televised, and if it was televised, wouldn't it suggest it is a notable award? Hzh (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Chitrapat means film, and mahotsav means festival. "Dadasaheb Phalke Marathi Chitrapat Mahotsav" would mean Dadasaheb Phalke (a person's name) Marathi (language, also my mother-tongue) film festival. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I found a list of all winners by year here. The 2011 list of winners doesnt mention the film/director, nor the 2012 winners. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article [11] was published and archived in 2010, and you can see from the picture in the article that it is about the same event in the video (you can see the same four persons at the start of the video) - [12]. It is clear to me then that there was a Dadasaheb Phalke Marathi Film Festival in 2010, and that the film was recognised at the festival somehow. Whether the film festival was rebranded/relaunched/replaced in 2011 or what I don't know, but it is also clear to me that whoever that wrote it was at the least partly accurate. Hzh (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have come to believe that either Gosavi, or someone else monetarily involved with the films paid off non RS to publish that the film has received awards. Other articles in non RS or RS are based on either pay offs, or on the false information from paid off articles. The photo in the article, is from the video; yes. But I am positive that video isnt of Phalke awards, nor Phalke film festival. In any case, we have no evidence suggesting there was a festival in 2010. All the sources clearly mention it began in 2011. In any case, winning an award in such a non notable festival wouldnt make it pass WP:NFILM. I am not sure why I spent my time discussing this. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is getting into conspiracy theory territory and what you said simply doesn't make any rational sense. The news article is from 2010, it was archived in June 2010 by an independent body, long before any article about the person or his work appear in Wikipedia. You can see in the video at 30 second the initial DPMCM with a picture of someone who looks like Dadasaheb Phalke. Therefore whatever that is, it happened in 2010 and it has the initials of the film festival with the picture of the person named. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phalke died in 1944. The best way to en any conspiracy is to have reliable sources. If we have reliable sources that the movie won this particular award, it's fine. If not, we are failing WP:V. Even if it has won that award, it doesn't make the movie pass WP:NFILM. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough.In India, we have thousands of award ceremonies which poach upon the names of significant figures in the field or the names of already existing notable award ceremonies et al to confer an illegitimate legitimacy upon themselves.

Thus, we can make two assumptions

(1)-->>The festival/awards/felicitations exist and fits my definition above, which also explains why the event has not been covered any in reliable vernacular sources.

(2)-->>As Kiran sez, a non-RS has been paid to write quasi-hoax stuff.FWIW, we have discovered popular media-units like TOI to be paid to write spammy-rubbish, as to promote a film.Hardly surprising.

Either of them doesn't do any good to this article, and that's a delete from me, per nom.∯WBG^converse 15:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is for Pratisaad alone. It is considered a notable film by this reliable source.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Cpt.a.haddock, that's as trivial as one can get. ∯WBG^converse 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is trivial. This, not so much. Being listed as an example of the new age of Marathi films by the Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinemas, again, not so much.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt.a.haddock, the question is whether it does pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.To me, it is a no but you can choose to differ. ∯WBG^converse 05:08, 6 November 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. Strong consensus that the company still does not meet inclusion guidelines. Given the prior history of recreation against this consensus this will be protected from recreation. If better sourcing to show notability emerges, please use the WP:AFC process or convince me or another administrator to remove this protection. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I've declined a WP:G4 request on this, as this iteration has completely different text to the various incarnations that were deleted a couple of years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freshdesk. However, I'm not convinced that this is actually a notable company in Wikipedia terms; yes, it's acquired a bunch of other companies and released a bunch of software, but none of them appear especially significant as far as I can see. There's a lot of coverage, but I'm not convinced there's much more than routine business announcements. However, this isn't my area of expertise, so I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is a notable company within its field.  ‑ Iridescent 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yes, the warrents a new discussion.The company is not notable according to our usual standards. The references are exactly the sort of routine notices and press releases that do not show notability at least not by our current interpretation. Even by the possible guideline tha tall public companies are notable, it still does not qualify. I suspect it is not really notable by frWP standards either, but it has only recently been added there, and I think they may not yet have noticed. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The content is translated directly from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Freshworks. This is inline with wikipedia policy on translation stated here Wikipedia:Translation. A translation template is also indicated on the talk page of the article.

Having read the reason for the AFD nomination, I have updated the page removing "Acquisitions" section and its references which appeared to be more of PRESS RELEASES.

Having done this, I believe the page now passes WP:GNG and should be kept. All the remaining references are news-related and independent. They were not paid for.

Again, If you check "Freshworks" in googlenews, there are lots of independent news-related references found aside from the PRESS RELEASES.

Thanks all for your great contributions.Chicausnnem (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chicausnnem (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

• Delete and salt, along with Freshworks Inc. and Freshworks Inc. Freshdesk was deleted a total of five times before it was finally salted at AfD. Salting is intended to force any future recreation to go through the AFC process or otherwise to convince an administrator to remove the protection. It is not an invitation to avoid scrutiny by recreating under another name. The speedy G4 was declined, and it is true that this is not a copy of the previous article, but the information content is pretty much the same. As for the keep arguments above, they are all invalid. Existence on another Wikipedia does not confer notability. Removing iffy references does not either. It is adding references that is going to help with notability, if anything does. Note that there are stricter requirements on company articles nowadays at WP:NCORP due to GNG being constantly gamed by COI editors. SpinningSpark 16:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as noted above, there are now tighter guidelines for the notabilty of orgs and cos; this article does not pass them. ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing the new guidelines for NCORP and Salt as being a clear target for UPE as well as the names mentioned by User:Spinningspark. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Freshworks should be treated as a separate entity from its predecessor, Freshdesk. The current draft is poorly written and it should be draftified for someone else to have a go at creating a stable page. There are a lot of third-party unbiased references not mentioned in the current draft on which this discussion is happening.Csgir (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to share them? SpinningSpark 13:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Csgir ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:48, 10 November 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 speedy keep. Close by nominator due to new information I couldn't before. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second City (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)

TV show that hasn't begun principal photography according to article and hasn't received significant coverage. Matt14451 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Best to draftify until principal photography begins. Matt14451 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article satisfies notability as the spinoff of Suits. Filming also is ongoing in Chicago. I would link to the Chicago Tribune article but if there's any international users here, you wouldn't be able to read anyway. So here's a Twitter link for a verified account reporter for the Chicago Tribune linking to said article confirming that its filming. [13]. Esuka323 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited as a spin-off of a notable show but seems to have enough secondary coverage in its own right in this case. Thank you for the link. The tweet mentions that the spin-off is untitled, I can't read the article from England so does it confirm the title of Second City? It's sourced here but the tweet is newer. This article would need to be moved to something like Untitled Suits Spin-off. Matt14451 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a move to "Untitled Suits spin-off" is totally warranted in this case. The Tribune article confirms that the series had been titled Second City but is currently untitled. – BoogerD (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has now been updated to include the fact that filming commenced on September 20, 2018 in Los Angeles and then moved to Chicago during the week of October 15th. – BoogerD (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the filming information to the article, I will withdraw this nomination following my above question about the article's title. Matt14451 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 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, withdrawn as James500 says he has found substantive coverage. (non-admin closure) Catrìona (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University Over the Abyss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I proded the article because I could not find any secondary coverage (let enough WP:NBOOK) and one of the authors of the book was the main contributor to the article. Atlantic306 deproded the article with the summary: "Deprod- these books could be rs with pagevnumbers." It's hard to see how the books could be references to the subject of the article, since most of them were published first. Since this is disputed, I'm taking it to AfD. Catrìona (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Can you give details of whether the author created the article ? was he a translater ? thanks (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306: Never mind, I seem to have gotten mixed up with one of usernames being similar. However, that doesn't solve the problem with NBOOK. Catrìona (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. Book review in the periodical European Judaism: [14]. Coverage equivalent to a book review in annotated bibliography: [15] [16]. That coverage was found quickly on a non-exhaustive search in English (and this book has been published in other languages). Multiple editions in English of 2000 and 2004, and a number of translations including Czech (Prague, 2002) [17] (both editions and translations are an indicator of popularity). The author Elena Makarova has more than 900 library holdings [18], so she is obviously notable, and that brings ATD, PRESERVE and R into play. (Victor Kuperman, Sergei Makharov and Nuala Archer also have hundreds of library holdings). James500 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I will withdraw this nomination, AGFing that those reviews are there (since they are paywalled, I cannot verify). But as far as I know, the number of library holdings is not a proxy for the author's notability; it isn't mentioned in WP:NAUTHOR. Catrìona (talk) 01:53, 2 November 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. The consensus of the discussion is that off line sources confirmed the subject's notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard May (speedway rider) (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)

Lacking media coverage which is enough to fail the WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article says he rode for only two teams, as if the article is trying to say he is not all that notable. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How does how many teams someone rode for have any bearing on notability? May rode in the top division of British speedway for nine seasons, winning the British League with Reading in 1973, and will undoubtedly have plenty of coverage in newspapers from the era and Speedway Star. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'm not seeing the coverage to support the claim he meets the GNG. He also isn't really mentioned in the Reading Racers and there's no indication what, if anything, he contributed to the team championship. I also see nothing to show he competed in international events. On the other hand, I don't know enough about British motorcycle racing from 50 years ago to know if he meets any of the notability standards listed for motor sports. There may also be significant coverage from back then that I didn't see with my search. I do agree that the number of teams he rode with is irrelevant.Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. You're lot likely to find a lot from a Google search for riders from that era. All riders in the top league would have had sufficient coverage in publications such as Speedway Star, which is not available online. Even riders from today receive plenty of coverage and at the time that May rode, speedway was the second most popular spectator sport in Britain after football. Speedway Press issue 22 has as the first article listed on the front page: "Speedway legends: Richard May". --Michig (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is pretty Internet so unlikely to have much stories or references. If he was mentioned as per above in magazines of the time these need to be referenced but as per other comments at the moment this page should be deleted.User:davidstewartharvey(talk) 20:20 25 October 2018

• Comment I found a few more refs which are not the strongest but he was also mentioned in the Get Reading ‘Racers heroes will return’ 24/9/08 but there is no copy online. He was a champion grass track champion and part of the '73 winning british league team. Need some more stronger references which will probably be hard refs.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added some information regarding individual successes which come from the official British speedway site and a link to the 1974 Individual Speedway World Championship where he competed in the prems.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11.07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All new information shows he was quite a successful rider though it needs more references from hard sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP WP:NMOTORSPORT point 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir Web Solutions (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)

Doesn't satisfy notability. Most mentions in searches are related to directories and job portals. Author also seems to have a COI going by the username. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only reference in the article is to the company's website. Had this been in draft space, it never would have made it to mainspace. I looked around for reliable sources, and found minor passing mentions here and there, but nothing focused on the company. Google News search returns two minor hits [19]. Failure of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are some references to the company in Google Books - [20], although the one with the most details sounds too much like a puff piece [21] which made me wary of voting keep. Hzh (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Per Hzh, despite the publisher being a very reliable one in the regional circuits and that there is a cultural difference, as to the style of writing between western media and Indian ones.But, one source do not maketh notability.I admit that I am yet to run a detailed search.∯WBG^converse 10:02, 4 November 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 and redirect to List of the verified oldest people. bd2412 T 19:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neva Morris (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)

Another contested PROD. Unremarkable sources, none of them even remotely surpass routine coverage, and when stripped of all the banal points we're left with a bunch of random statistics that fails WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of reliable sources significant coverage that is sustained over an extended period of years, easily passes WP:GNG. The nomination is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an interpretation of past consensus. If a valid policy can be quoted then I may change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her driving history and her offspring. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to an appropriate list. wearing the hat presented to her by the Red Hat Society tells it all. NOPAGE. EEng 03:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How good is the "80 year accident-free driving record" sentence? CommanderLinx (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mom and dad are 90 and 93 respectively, still driving, and still 100% accident-free, so I'm not impressed. EEng 17:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. This is a WP:PERMASTUB that can't be expanded beyond born, got married, had kids, became oldest in the country and then died. Take out the fluffy longevity trivia that strains to pad the article such as two quotes about her from her son in law and that she liked fast cars and there's nothing of interest that isn't easily handled in a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Once the trivia about longevity stats is removed, there remains nothing of substance about this person's life (well, she liked to drive). Her entry in the various "oldest people" tables is enough to convey the only thing that she is really notable for, i.e. her exceptional longevity. — JFG ^talk 12:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to List of the verified oldest people as per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Over and above the fact that she was very very very old when she died she does not seem to achieved notability. Also she is only number 62 on the list as it is and 24th oldest person from the US and will continue to descend. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:02, 7 November 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 Glory Days (Little Mix album)#Track listing. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Else Matters (Little Mix song) (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, this is an album track, many of the references refer to album reviews and do not deal with the track in detail (ignoring those references to Lyrics, guitar chords, the music video, and music vendors). Possibly some material could be merged into the album page. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Doesn't need to be deleted, it's a valid title to keep as a redirect. Ss112 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, previous users have attempted to redirect the page, but have been reverted, last time user requested it be brought here diff. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then this time there'll be a consensus to keep it redirected, and it can be protected to maintain that if need be. They can always recreate it if it's deleted as well. Ss112 04:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I support the redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I'm not sure about the article to be deleted, because this article was created as a redirect by "Ss112", and then it was expanded by a sock puppet of "Littlemixfan!". Raritydash (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the parent article. I understand the argument to delete given how it was recreated, but if any future attempts are made, I would think they could simply be redirected due to the decision of this AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article about the album since subject fails WP:NSONG and cannot have an independent article about it. In case this is indeed turned into a Redirect, it should be sprinkled with a generous amount of salt, as well. Incidentally, the text needs a lot of trimming since it contains a lot of adequately sourced but clearly promotional, when not irrelevant, material. -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 9 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma (project) (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)

Two RS mentions, two press release reprints, lots of primary sourcing, little to no evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows only mentions of price movements in crypto blogs. Challenged PROD, though challenger didn't bother fixing any of the problems. It looks like the sort of thing that should have more notability, but the evidence isn't there. David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @David Gerard: I have added some references to the article, check it out please. I feel this subject is enough notable to pass WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • cheers :-) I mean, I'm quite willing to be convinced ... do they have a press page or something useful like that? And it's an academic project, do they have peer-reviewed citations? Stuff like that. I was actually surprised not to find stuff on it - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete press releases don't count for notability, which were the sources I saw. There's the Wired source for notability which isn't enough. Looks WP:TOOSOON / non or borderline notable but in a very promotional field meaning we should be strict. Widefox; talk 16:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's two sentences about it in an October New York Times article. That's not good enough to claim Wikipedia notability but it shows potential WP:TOOSOON. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 20:20, 5 November 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 British supercentenarians#Jane Gray. Sandstein 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Gray (supercentenarian) (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 18:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and the standard longevity secret. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Article only tells us the bare basics of born, got married, had kids and died. Nothing of interest that isn't easily handled on a list somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Jane Gray (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a merger. — JFG ^talk 11:40, 4 November 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. Sandstein 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stevenson (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. The article consists solely of trivia about oldest people who came before or after her. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. There is no article; it's just a factoid about who was the oldest person before her and oldest after she died. There is no policy that "the oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Her name, life dates, nationality and record are already recorded on a list at Oldest people. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nom and the above are spot on. This article is a perfect example of why WP:NOPAGE is a thing. There is no article here. It restates information already on the table at Oldest people. Given that every single source tells us "born, became oldest living person, died", she's better off on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Alice Stevenson (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't tell us anything that isn't already in a table so no mini-bio is needed. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to preserve except trivia about longevity. Opposing redirect on this one. — JFG ^talk 11:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing worth keeping just trivia, the biographies in the List of British supercentenarians seem to serve no purpose at all as they are just an addition of pointless trivia "met the Queen mother at age 109"..."outlived her siblings"..."gave up smoking at 84"..."put her longevity down to "living a quiet life""..."had she lived another 6 days she would have broken a record"..."secret to longevity was "never look back, always look forward, which she is certainly doing"". Is this the stuff of encyclopedias? --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:13, 7 November 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. Sandstein 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Jones (supercentenarian) (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 18:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOPAGE. The only thing semi remarkable other then her age is that some idiot robbed her three times when she was really old. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her life and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Grace Jones (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to preserve on this one, I'd oppose a redirect; her name can create confusion with the well-known Grace Jones, when people use the search box, they may assume that the singer became a supercentenarian! — JFG ^talk 11:44, 4 November 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 British supercentenarians#Violet Wood. Fails notability guidelines, but redirected as suggested because there was no reason (in policy) not to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Wood (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Violet Wood (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Fails WP:GNG as every source is from Kent which is local coverage as she was born and lived in the area. Even if these local articles made her "notable", this is a WP:PERMASTUB that has no hope of expanding beyond 7 fluffy and strained trivial sentences about her. One sentence is the unrelated ages of her sisters and another is her successor. So WP:NOPAGE definitely applies here too. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:21, 5 November 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 British supercentenarians#Eva Morris. Fails notability guidelines, but redirected as suggested because there was no reason (in policy) not to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Morris (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 18:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her longevity record and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Eva Morris (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. This article is filled with unnecessary trivia (she rode a bike and smoked). One sentence is devoted to someone who claimed to be older but wasn't authenticated which strains to pad this article. Other than that, she was born, got old and then died. Nothing that isn't easily handled on a list somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:02, 4 November 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 British supercentenarians#Lucy d'Abreu. Fails notability guidelines, but redirected as suggested because there was no reason (in policy) not to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy d'Abreu (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. WP:NOPAGE applies. — JFG ^talk 18:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just longevity milestones for various individuals or arbitrary categories, and trivia fluff about her family and places lived. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being so old, and being invetisgated to prove this age and being covered by media isn't enough for notability? Is there any general discussion about this? I don't know if I qualify to vote here. IacobusBr (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusBr You seem well intentioned, so please understand that there is no guideline or policy that the oldest anything is automatically notable and many thousands of very old people have had their ages investigated, so that's nothing special. It's typical for some media coverage to exist on very old people, but such coverage is typically considered WP:ROUTINE (such as birthday announcements, obituaries, or records) and not WP:SIGCOV of the individual. Unscrupulous editors (many now topic or perma-banned), often with serious conflict of interest issues, in the past treated Wikipedia as a place to create a free web of longevity fan articles on as many very old people as possible without regard to notability because they brought the validation group (GRG) greater publicity (money) and as a hobby. Such articles are being weeded out, like this similar one: 1. Plenty of others have gotten the ax both recently and over the years. This topic area has had a great deal of controversy for over 10 years. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusBr: Rest assured you are totally qualified to comment here, as is any editor in good standing. Thank you for your contribution! For ongoing discussion about notability of individual supercentenarians, please take a look at WT:LONGEVITY. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Lucy d'Abreu (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect for this one. — JFG ^talk 11:45, 4 November 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 British supercentenarians#Annie Knight. Per WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Knight (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. I do not believe that the anecdote about Radio Free Scotland qualifies for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and it's poorly sourced anyway. — JFG ^talk 17:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we have articles at Supercentenarian and List of British supercentenarians, then we are acknowledging some degree of notability for all supercenterarians. Being the oldest of the lot would certainly seem to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the fully tally at List of British supercentenarians#Chronological list of the oldest living person in the United Kingdom since 1963, Annie Knight held the "title" of Ye Oldest Living Briton for a grand total of 124 days in 2006. How is that more notable than any of the other people listed there? For most of these people, their only claim to fame is that some longevity aficionados enjoy tracking them. This article smells of WP:NOPAGE. If Ms. Knight's militant activities are deemed worth keeping, they can be listed in a one-paragraph mini-bio at the list article. — JFG ^talk 22:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just longevity milestones for other individuals or arbitrary categories, and trivia fluff about political activism and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the oldest person in a country for 4 months does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it's true that we used to have a consensus that "oldest living person" was an encyclopedic notability claim in its own right, that's long since been deprecated as not automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself anymore — especially because, as happened here, it's a title that repeatedly shifts to a completely new person at indeterminate intervals of weeks or months. If somebody could locate career coverage about her in the context of Radio Free Scotland or her Scottish nationalist activism, then that might change things — but if the only sources that can be provided are dated 2006 and cover her specifically in the context of becoming the country's oldest living person in August and then dying four months later, rather than in the context of doing anything specific, then that's just not enough anymore to earn her a standalone biography separately from her inclusion in List of British supercentenarians itself. A lot of our permitted inclusion criteria circa 2006 were badly thought out (kids being deemed permanently notable for winning spelling bees was a thing back then too) and have been revised or overturned in the intervening decade. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Annie Knight (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:49, 4 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Gennet (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 musician. I did notice that he has written articles for Huffington Post, but I do not think that contributes to notability. Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neither as a pianist nor as a journalist/blogger is the subject notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any chart success and the fact his music is "difficult to categorize, suggests that he isn't notable in a particular genre.FelixFLB (talk) 16:27, 6 November 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 British supercentenarians#Annie Turnbull. Fails notability guidelines, but redirected as suggested because there was no reason (in policy) not to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Turnbull (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 independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just longevity milestones for other individuals, and trivia fluff about her family, work history, and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There does not seem to be notability beyond her age which is not enough to justify an article. I think the points above demonstrate that can be covered in the list described above. Dunarc (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Annie Turnbull (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article's history, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.

  Cunard (talk) 03:47, 4 November 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 British supercentenarians#Elsie Steele. Fails notability guidelines, bur redirected as suggested because there was no policy-based reason no to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]