Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 13: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:56, 13 October 2018 editHuon (talk \| contribs)Administrators51,328 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ranorex GmbH. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:19, 13 October 2018 edit undoPraxidicae (talk \| contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers169,003 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DataRobot (2nd nomination). (TW)Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DataRobot (2nd nomination)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ranorex GmbH}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ranorex GmbH}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards}}<!--Relisted-->		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 10:19, 13 October 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 7 (Tue) January 6 (Mon) January 5 (Sun) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 12 October	14 October >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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. Michig (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

DataRobot

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating for the same reason as prior. Straight up WP:ARTSPAM with little coverage, mostly WP:MILL and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Praxidicae (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, still routine coverage and business listings, far from reaching notability guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. still no evidence or notability. It appears to be a routine servvice company, and the sources do not meet NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete: As far as I can see, there has been no development of the article since the soft delete after AfD earlier this month. The many references are routine announcements, partnership listings, etc. Despite the quantity, neither these nor searches are showing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Mkdw 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ranorex GmbH

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

I turned this version of the page into a redirect because of poor sources that fail WP:CORPDEPTH, with the main source a pamphlet promoting Graz as a place of business. There's no indication that the company meets WP:CORP. The decision has been challenged on the talk page. The additional sources presented there are "market analysis reports" of $1,995 to $3,999 per piece, one of which doesn't seem to exist and another of which I doubt is reliable, leaving us with a Gartner report that apparently exists and discusses Ranorex in some detail (though it's unclear what it says; I don't have access). One good source is not enough to establish notability. Bringing it here for a discussion per WP:BLAR: Redirect to Ranorex Studio (unless that is also found to not be notable, in which case both should be deleted, but that's another issue). Huon (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep The gutting of the article by removing "lots of unreliably sourced, promotional content" was fine. What was left is enough for the company to meet WP:GNG. I reverted to the previous state (with the poor sources) for now, but I could see the article go back to the state listed above. Ultimately, the article should be expanded to discuss the company's products and anything else that can be reliably sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to work to improve the article and sources, subject to COI editor guidelines. Jaking01 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep The existence of analyst reports including from Gartner and Forrester meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

HighKing, I don't see Forrester cited in the article. Would you mind improving the page by summarizing what Forrester says about the company? Huon (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Huon, it is probably better for subject-matter experts to add this type of material to the article. I simply applied the criteria for establishing notability - two sources required. Since two analyst reports from two different analyst firms are available, this topic meets the criteria. It is not appropriate for post analyst reports here but my Google searching has turned up more than enough. HighKing 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

HighKing, I have to disagree: The Forrester report mostly is a review of one specific product and thus could be used as a source for the article on that product, but doesn't provide much, if anything, about the company beyond the fact that they got bought, routine coverage that does not help establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Does the Gartner report have anything more substantial about the company? I don't have access to that one. Huon (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Huon Perhaps you're reading a different report? The one I have is entitled "The Forrester Wave™: Omnichannel Functional Test Automation Tools, Q3 2018, The 15 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up". 24 pages long and each vendor gets approx 25%-33% of a page. It isn't routine. It is significant and independent. HighKing 11:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@HighKing: It's a review of one specific product - the product, not the vendor, gets much of that third of a page. For some vendors, eg Microsoft, there's a little about company strategy and how that impacts the product, but not for Ranorex (beyond "they got bought" and some speculation about a possible future). I summarized here what it says about Ranorex Studio. What does it say about the company itself? I didn't see anything relevant. You're welcome to edit the company article and improve it, but I couldn't find anything useful in the report. As an aside, "independent" is debatable since Forrester apparently only contacts customers that have been proposed by the vendor, but that's not relevant here since even then too few Ranorex customers replied for Forrester to say anything about their reaction. Huon (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Idera Software, they recently bought it up. Szzuk (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. G5, only non sock edits prior to deletion request were to add uncat and then another to add cats —SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Asian Viewers Television Awards

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

No indication this four-year-old award meets WP:GNG or that it is a notable award. Award mills are everywhere, and editors (like the sockpuppet operator who created this one) often create articles about these non-notable awards so that they can puff up the articles of the various people they are paid to puff up. The award allows the general public to nominate celebrities and to vote.

Of the references in the article, four come from BizAsia, a press-release site that is also "the exclusive online partner of Asian Viewers Television Awards 2017 (AVTA)" according to this. Thus, it's not independent. But kind of moot since it's a press release site. Filmibeat calls it "prestigious" after 3 years of running, but FilmiBeat is not a site held in high regard at Wikipdia. (See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources)

I don't find significant coverage that talks about the award itself. Most of the sites I can find just briefly cover the event, logging details about winners. I don't think it yet meets our qualifications for a stand-alone article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 09:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Wilbur Award

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

This poetry award has an "entry fee is $25 per manuscript, and the award is $1000". Sounds like a vanity award to me, rather than something notable. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment, at the very least a redirect/merge to a "Legacy" section of Richard Wilbur? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 23:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment there seems to have been another award by the same name given in 1985 by the University of Missouri Press and the American Literary Translators Association for translating poetry. I don't know about other years. StrayBolt (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

1985 Sandra Reyes for Nicanor Parra's Sermones y prédicas del Cristo de Elqui (Sermons and Teachings of the Christ of Elquí)

1986 Roger Greenwald and William Mishler for Paal-Helge Haugen's Stone Fences. StrayBolt (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Google, Google Books, Google News and HighBeam Research all show that it is often cited and that it is in fact prestigious. Being published by this university is not trivial; it is an important prize and consequential recognition. The $25 fee merely keeps them from being inundated by nonserious applicants. There is only one award per year. Meets WP:GNG.
The statement that it "sounds like a vanity award" is simply untrue. The argument is WP:OR and a bare conclusion. It is a logical fallacy unrelated to WP:Notability. It ignores
:1. the credentials of the person who established the award William Baer, a professor at the University of Evansville who is recognized as a serious poet in his own right;
:2. the purpose and intent to honor the memory of the second U.S. Poet Laureate Richard Wilbur (who won two Pulitzer Prizes) and
:3. the institutional reputation and gravitas of The University of Evansville.
In effect you are impugning both their credentials and their eleemosynary and artistic intent. This is not a vanity press or a Commercial enterprise. Cf., Famous Poets Society. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Aizenman, Hannah (October 16, 2017). "Richard Wilbur in the New Yorker". The New Yorker.
Rivenburg, Roy (November 24, 2002). "There Once Was a Poet from L.A." Los Angeles Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 09:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that 15 of the 21 winners have their own articles is enough to convince me of notability. The fact that Amazon refer to it in the titles of entries like this, this and this is also persuasive. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Not unlike the Hopwood Award at the University of Michigan, which included Arthur Miller among its recipients. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Vanity awards are more likely to charge you $1000 to enter and to present you with $25 if you win. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would not use those reasons for notability. My award (which I just made up) has articles for ALL the winners, all of which are either Nobel, Pulitzer, or Publishing Clearing House winners. I think Amazon mentions the award in the title because it is the subtitle of the book. And now we should find some RSs for the Hopwood Award too. StrayBolt (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

However, once the award is established as notable, we can (probably) leave the red links assuming the winners are or will become notable. StrayBolt (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think this is a misleading nomination, as an entry fee or prize money has nothing at all to do with notability. My bigger concern is I can't find anything reliable that's not a non-primary source (evansville.edu). The Amazon blurbs don't count, unfortunately - they're being used to sell the book. None of the articles linked mention the award anything other than in passing. "Poets and Writers" mentions Robert Crawford's win almost in passing, but perhaps there's text cut off? I'm probably a "weak delete" vote at the moment, but there's enough passing mentions of it around where I don't really care if it's kept, but I would love to see more reliable sources which significantly cover the award. SportingFlyer talk 13:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep Small poetry prize created by two exceedingly notable people. Cant see anything wrong with it. Poets live in the sticks, and that combined with the prestigious names attached to it, would suspect the prize would very be welcome. scope_creep (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. In terms of actually justified !votes there is a clear consensus that the improved article (dour or not) is sufficiently sourced to pass notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hippo eats dwarf

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

Questionable notability. Also the story itself is unreferenced Openlydialectic (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This was nominated for deletion in 2011 and was decided to be kept. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide a URL to the discussion, because there's no links on the article's talk page to previous deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no AfD as far as I can see. It was nominated in 2009 for speedy deletion as a G3 (hoax) which was declined (an article about a hoax is not itself a hoax). It was also nominated in 2010 under A7 which is an equally inappropriate criterion. SpinningSpark 22:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The Snopes source in the article gives a good account of the history (and much of it is currently missing from the article). Together with the fact that this has reappeared in "proper" newspapers in at least three bursts at different times and is the title of Boese's book, who also gives an account of its history, is enough to get it past GNG for me. SpinningSpark 16:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Hippos only eat dwarf vegetables SpinningSpark 16:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. User:Kylelovesyou is the creator of the article and his comment above can likely be taken as a "keep", although that was not explicitly stated. SpinningSpark 16:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to List of urban legends, where there is already an entry for it. Deb (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Redirect to List of urban legends. By the way, did you know that hippos kill an average of 2,900 people a year? True fact. Carrite (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As well as split opinions, editors on either side (if Kylelovesyou is a de facto !vote) aren't sufficiently justifying their !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep WP:HEY, I added some WP:RS. Also, there was a 2006 book that took this hoax for its title. We could consider making this a page about the book. I added a few sources about that book, including book reviews. More sources are available in in news archives. Note that a topic does not have to be dour to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Per the massive improvements to the article. I find the story grim and tragic, and fail to see any humour in it. Dour it is, notable it is, and must be kept. XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Spinningspark has convinced me. Isingness (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The result was redirect to PubNub. clpo13_(talk) 22:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

ChatEngine

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRITE due to complete lack of acceptable sourcing. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep or Redirect to PubNub. Also, have added some more refs to make the article pass notability. Heena73 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A redirect as a categorized {{R to related topic}} to the company article at PubNub where subject is mentioned seems like a good solution. If subject should later meet the inclusion criteria Misplaced Pages:Notability (software) or the general notability guideline, I have no problem with resurrecting the article. Sam Sailor 18:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthieu Bucaille

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

The article reads like a promotion. El principita (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to update this article if the community has pointers on making it sound less promotional. I created the article based on the media available to me, which all seemed to be pretty positive toward the subject's career. I'm open to recommendations, and will check back here and on my talk page for feedback. Thanks! TardyMarmot (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TardyMarmot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

I've updated the article to remove promotional-sounding language - please review and let me know if there are other opportunities to improve the article. TardyMarmot (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments focusing on the subject's notability would help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The subject is notable in the finance industry, particularly French finance, as the first Frenchman in recent history to be appointed to an executive position at Lazard Ltd. He is also known for having advised on the merger of Gaz de France and Suez, which became GDF Suez and later Engie, a major French utility company. TardyMarmot (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete: I looked through the sources. I see a few passing mentions, an "executive profile" on Bloomberg (not journalistic coverage), some primary sourcing (press releases), and other non-useful sources. We summaries of independent and comprehensive journalistic coverage to build Misplaced Pages articles. Waggie (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

She with a Broom, He in a Black Hat

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

Non-notable Soviet Union film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG).--RTY9099 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 6. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Quite a few mentions in Russian sources in GBooks. My gut instinct is that there is likely enough coverage from former soviet countries from the era of its release. A Google search isn't sufficient here. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep per Michig. Misplaced Pages has a fairly low bar for inclusion of films, and this article is certainly not advertising (and the film is from 1987). It's a film with notable actors, a musical with a notable composer, and tells a story including notable Russian folk characters. I'd say keep. It's often difficult to immediately find Russian information on the internet, and Michig says the film is mentioned in quite a few Russian sources in GoogleBooks. Softlavender (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep as has reliable sources book coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 16:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Chebo people

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

Unsourced and poorly written article proposing the existence of an ethnic group. Turtlewong (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, firstly, at the time of nomination it had 3 citations. Those should certainly be checked, but a priori this is a sourced article.
Secondly, if "poorly written" were grounds for deletion, we'd have a much smaller encyclopedia than we do.
Thirdly, the Chebo/Chabo (both spellings are mentioned in the article) do appear to exist:

Chebo is a regional identification not an ethnic group. For example, Amhara is an ethnic group but Amharas from Gondar say they Gondare, from Gojame say they are Gojame, etc. Your source above doesn't state that Chebo is an ethnic group. Rather, Chebo is a regional subgroup of Oromos who lived in (at the time of the book's publication) in Chebo Awrajja. Also, I stand by my criticism of the article being unsourced. The three references listed in the article are off topic and make no mention of Chebo as an ethnicity. This what I meant by poor writing: making claims and then citing random papers that do not support the statements. Turtlewong (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. If the Chebo are not an ethnic group, that is grounds for improving the article, not deletion. The claim the article is unsourced is misleading; at most, it is the claim that the Chebo are an ethnic group that is unsourced. There is no prima facie reason for us not to have an article on a regional group. There is Cockney for instance, which no one in their right mind would claim constitutes an ethnicity. Since no one has made a claim that the Chebo are not notable, they meet our criteria for inclusion. SpinningSpark 17:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep The article probably does need to be rewritten, but that's not grounds for deletion. funplussmart (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Qurayyah

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random, non-notable area of rocky/hilly terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, unresearched nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete all of these articles. I'm surprised that these managed to be around for 10 years. funplussmart (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Murayshid

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

Pin points to holding area for disused planes at Fujairah airport. Fails WP: anything you care to name. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Even if this were to exist (which it apparently doesn't), if it's a 59-foot hill it doesn't meet any kind of notability. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per the ridiculousness of all these stubs. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Mulfirah

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin is to flat scrubland in Fujairah city. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, fails verification. Softlavender (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Mubrahah

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Random pin. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, fails verification. Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Jim Nettles

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

~~Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. No sources independent of statistics sites. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)~~

Keep Meets WP:NBASE having played 240 games over six years in Major League Baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Major League Baseball players are notable. sources are out there. Spanneraol (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep, took me no time at all to find some sources (for both Jim Nettles as a matter of fact). Wizardman 15:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy keep I created this article, otherwise I would have closed it as speedy keep myself. @Mythdon:, please familiarize yourself with WP:NBASE before invoking it. Per NBASE#2, baseball players are presumed notable if they "have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." He has appeared in Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- I saw but apparently my understanding of NBASE is different from the community, withdrawing. That same guideline also mentioned statistics sites by themselves don't establish notability, so I guess the application of NBASE is a bit tricky, since it's the first time I've ever invoked it.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Obviously meets WP:NBASEBALL. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy Keep clearly meets notability standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Obvious pass of WP:NBASEBALL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Mimduk

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random hilly terrain inland of Fujairah. Mimduk is a wadi, BTW, not near here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Inaccurate nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Khadra'

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to trees off the Ghub road. Khadra is a well-known wadi, BTW, nowhere near this. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Inaccurate nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Janubi

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to mountain terrain north of Masafi Friday Market. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. One of a massive series of misleading shot-gun three-word articles on hills and "mountains" in the UAE by someone with zero knowledge of the area, most of which articles are clearly, upon examination, completely and utterly inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Haqamah

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, unresearched, misleading three-word stub posted by someone with zero knowledge of the area. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Gral

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

Fails WP:V, GNG GEOLAND. Pin is random terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading three-word "article" posted in shot-gun fashion by someone with zero knowledge of the area. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Ghura

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin is random rocky terrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. One of a massive series of shot-gun three-word articles on hills and "mountains" in the UAE by someone with zero knowledge of the area, most of which articles are clearly, upon examination, completely inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. This is not a mountain. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Ghulayyil Khun

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

Fails WP:V, GNG GEOLAND. Pin points to random mountainous terrain inlande of Bidayah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. One of a massive series of shot-gun three-word articles on hills and "mountains" in the UAE by someone with zero knowledge of the area, most of which articles are clearly, upon examination, completely inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. This one could possibly be a mountain, but probably not this specific mountain. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Ghina

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

No it's not. Pin points to a wadi west of Bithnah. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate nonsense; one of a massive series of inaccurate three-word geographical stubs by someone with zero knowledge. This situation is requiring a clean-up that has reached Neelix-level proportions. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. This is getting ridiculous. Natureium (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Fujayrah

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

There is no Jebel Fujairah. Pin points to random hillsides inland of Sakamkam. Fails WP:V, GNG ETC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate three-word "article". Even if it exists as claimed (disputed and doubtful), a 564-foot hill bears no notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. If the creator weren't already blocked, I would recommend that. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Sandstein 20:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal ad Dayt

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

Fails WP:V, GEOLAND and GNG. Pin points to a location offshore of Sharm. Which is an interesting place to find a mountain. Although a 66ft high mountain is itself a novel idea... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Inaccurate three-word nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Thanks for at least making me laugh with the description of this one. These are all garbage. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete A satellite view shows a curved spit of land like a breakwater, with a road and maybe car or truck parking or some similar storage. Shipping containers? But no sign of a mountain or even a hill. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete searching led me to believe that this is a hoax ,so delete.JC7V-constructive zone 22:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Fariq

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to random mountainous terrain inland of Sakamkam. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading. One of a massive series of grossly inaccurate articles by the same user. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Dad

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

Points to random hillside in ranges east of Abadilah, west of Wurrayah. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, misleading, fails verification. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Buta

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

Points to a depression in hills around Al Hayl. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Inaccurate, misleading three-word "article". Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. A depression is the opposite of a mountain. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per above, non-notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal al Utayfah

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

Points to some trees off the Ghub road. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. And is a place in Saudi Arabia, apparently... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. One of a massive series of inaccurate three-word stubs rapid-fire created by someone with zero knowledge of the area using a massively inaccurate and massively outdated source. Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Not even the right country. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal al Kubus

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

Points to non-notable area of rocky land south of Dibba. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Interestingly, Kubuś is a pulp juice made from Mazury region carrots and fruit. Which is more relevant than this stub. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. A 460-foot hill, if it actually exists (highly unlikely given the article creator's track record in this area) utterly fails notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal al Huwaybit

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

Pin points to ridge in deep mountains east of Sharm. This is not a peak. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Inaccurate, unverified unresearched nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete Fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Natureium (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal al Habil

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

Pin points to lowland north of Bidayah. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A hill 680 feet tall fails GNG and in all likelihood the information itself is completely inaccurate, considering the article creator's track record in this area. Softlavender (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per snow. At least it isn't 26 feet high. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability, likely garbage. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal al Balush

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

If it is, it's in someone's back garden and it's apparently 23ft high. Cruft. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. And any sane test of reality. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If it even exists (highly doubtful considering the article creator's other creations in this area), it's a hill only 23 feet high. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment - this seems to be one of a series of very short articles, saying nothing more than such-and-such a place is a hill or mountain in Fujairah. We already have an article on List of mountains in Fujairah, and it appears that these short articles are just typings based on this list. Vorbee (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, Vorbee, the reverse is true; that list article was compiled from these faux articles. Therefore the list article will need to be either gutted or deleted as well. Pinging Alexandermcnabb to check that list article and help decide what to do with it. Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hiya. The list will be a great deal smaller, but there are identified and notable mountains (not many) in contemporary Fujairah, such as Jebel Wamm and Jebel Sakamkam. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, after all of these Jabal AfDs close, someone will need to delete the redlinks from the List of mountains in Fujairah. If the redlinks stay there, they are likely to be re-created from spurious internet information that has been spawned from this Misplaced Pages misinformation. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender Sure, I'll take care of it. I'm trying not to look at the lists of mountains in Ras Al Khaimah, Dubai etc! :( Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete lacking verifiability and notability. Do we need to vote on all these articles, or can common sense prevail? Natureium (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Janine Dickins

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

This was originally my first article creation back in 2008, but there has been no improvement and there is no current assertion for future improvement. Only sources that exist are movie databases (like IMDB and Moviefone). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 12:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy delete under WP:G7 (author requests deletion). — Newslinger talk 08:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Tagged article for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 08:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal ad Dahir

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

Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND as well as GNG. Pin points to a random mountainside. Dahir is a wadi and it's nowhere near this location. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Grossly inaccurate and highly misleading three-word "article" posted on Misplaced Pages for no good reason. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Lugnuts 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete lacking verifiability and notability. If there are any more, let's batch AfD. Natureium (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was soft delete (per low participation). WP:REFUND applies. North America 14:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Jana Nayaka

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 12:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete - fails NFILM Spiderone 13:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Pakistani Records in Guinness Book

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

Clearly indiscriminate list. None of the sources treat this as the primary or important subject contrary to WP:SIGCOV. Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of records of India and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List indian records for similar previous deletions. Lorstaking (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just approved this through AfC as it is well referenced. Was not aware of precident for deleting similar lists. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 11:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete: I created the draft. I was also going to nominate it for deletion because there are many records in Guinness Book. You can check it by clicking here. And there a lot of sources are needed to make it. PakEditor (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G7 since PakEditor, the author and sole contributor of substantial content, wants it deleted. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ESW Capital

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

Not notable? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America 12:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete While I'd prefer a more convinced nominator, most fo the sources I found on Gnews were press releases or run of the mill non-indepth mentions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Google search of "ESW Capital" turns out 10 pages of info. Most of the companies it acquired are notable and have their own wiki entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junhua Chang (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing 19:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. Strong consensus that there is sufficient independent review coverage of the subject to enable satisfaction of WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Last Girl

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

Fails WP:NBOOK in my opinion, as the Publishers Weekly review seems too trivial and short. wumbolo ^^^ 15:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete Agree that this fails WP:NBOOK. Auldhouse (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The book has received at least two reviews from newspapers, the Washington Times and The Guardian. I can't find the Independent source, but if that could be found that would be a nice addition as well. Booklist also reviewed the book, which should be seen as reliable given that it's from the American Library Association. It also received a review from Lituanus, so this should pass NBOOK. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per review coverage, such as , and . North America 15:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep The book covered in the article "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", so it passes WP:BOOKCRIT#1. Bakazaka (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep: The Independent site's dire search facility hasn't helped verify the Alan Sillitoe's listing of it as a 2003 book of the year in "The Independent on Sunday", but even without that the Guardian and Washington Times items should suffice for WP:NBOOK criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep per sources provided by Northamerica1000.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Neither delete argument is convincing here. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
~~Keep due to coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:BOOKCRIT. Knightrises10 talk 14:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Second Lady or Second Gentleman of the Philippines

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

Original research and the article is unsourced. There is no such thing as a second lady or second gentleman in the Philippines or at least there is no coverage of such by reliable sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename to List of spouses of Vice Presidents of the Philippines; slighly more awkward but describes what this list article is about without a neologism. I doubt that a merge to List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines would be beneficial to that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is supposed to be the Vice President's equivalent of the First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines, an informal title referring to the host/hostess of the Malacanang Palace for presidential events which just happens to be the spouse of the incumbent president. Note that the vice president entry also includes a daughter of the current female vice president so the scope includes non-spouses. And the term may not event exist and just be a neologism to imitate the US equivalent when not even national Philippine media outlets has occasionally covered spouses of the Vice President.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete or Draftify as this is totally unsourced but may actually exist as a term however unlikely this might seem. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find any notability. Rosario (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note. Please note that this article, under a prior name, was kept on 30 December 2011 per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Second Spouse of the Philippines. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This deletion discussion had literally no keep arguments based on policy or guidelines. A summary of the comments is it's useful or "I don't have a problem with this article". --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename per Power~enwiki. While the individual entries in this list aren't original research, the title of the list is.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim of incumbent Leni Robredo's daughter holding the role of "Second Lady" is unsupported by a reliable source. I don't think we can just ignore the fact that the article claims that her daughter is "second lady" and rename this article as "Second spouse" when the current VP's daughter is obviously not her spouse. If the consensus is to keep and rename this article. That part of this article definitely has to go.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete: I think the bottom line here is there is no sourcing, and doesn't appear to be any forthcoming. Aside from notability not being inherited, one of the core tenets of Misplaced Pages is verifiability. Notability is also not inherited. If we look at it as a list of people, then WP:LISTBIO applies, which this fails. If we look it as a definition of a neologism, then WP:NOTNEO applies, which states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Misplaced Pages." Sourcing is the primary distinguishing characteristic, it seems, between the US version of the article and this one - the US version has a great deal of sourcing even though it is also problematic in it's own way. Waggie (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. It's unfortunate this discussion didn't draw more participation, but after three relists, we need to pull the plug. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Energia-100

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

The development of this satellite is only supported by announcements dating from September 2015, with a presumptive launch date of 2018. No further news ever appeared, and now that we are nearing the end of 2018, this satellite is absent from all usual sources documenting ongoing projects and planned launches over the next 2-3 years, that we use for example to maintain 2018 in spaceflight, 2019 in spaceflight and hundreds of space-related articles. A WP:BEFORE search looking for any mention of this project in the last year, yielded no corroborating results. It is doubtful whether the project ever started beyond the 2015 announcement. If this announcement is all we have, the project fails general notability. Hence, deletion looks like the best course of action. — JFG 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. The nominator is mistaken that there is no mention since 2015. This Space News article from 2017 says "A lack of business, change of ownership, and frayed bilateral relations between Russia and Ukraine stymied Sea Launch’s Angosat mission, which was supposed to be a dual launch with the Energia-100 communications satellite." This 2018 article and this (2017, in German) have essentially the same story. So even if it was never launched (or even built) it seems to have some notability as a failed project. However, a merge and redirect to AngoSat 1 may be appropriate if sufficient material for a decent standalone page is not forthcoming. SpinningSpark 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources you cite talk about initial plans for Energia 100; they do not show any progress on it beyond the original announcement. Quoting the German source, Bei der Beauftragung des Satelliten war für 2016 ein Start auf einer Zenit-Rakete von der Seeplattform Odyssey zusammen mit einem anderen Kommunikationssatelliten namens Energia 100 anvisiert worden., which means When the satellite was contracted , its launch was envisaged together with another communications satellite called Energia 100 from the sea platform Odyssey. I would only support a keep or merge if any source documents some development of this project in 2017 or 2018. Failing that, deletion is the way per GNG. — JFG 23:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Subzero (adjective)

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

This is a dictionary definition, and an unnecessarily complicated one. "There are two definitions" is followed by "means below zero". Should just be redirected to Subzero or just deleted outright. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. The nominator seems correct. This is a dictionary word rather than an encyclopedia entry. Rosario (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete as superfluous to subzero and the already existing Wiktionary entry.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete Multiple dictionary definitions add up to a slightly longer dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, and Misplaced Pages policy is that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Any search for the term will find it in the existing disambiguation page, so keeping the redirect adds no value. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhonda number

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

Fails WP:GNG with no coverage in secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Web pages, an OEIS entry, and a MathWorld listing are not enough to add up to serious notability. No Google Scholar nor Google Books sources. This appears to be the same editor that has been spamming many Misplaced Pages number theory articles with masses of base-dependent original research; see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2018/Aug#Duodecimal and Template talk:Classes of natural numbers#Declutter these templates, among others. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per above.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete as not notable per David Eppstein. There's nothing on Scholar as he says, and nothing on HighBeam or JSTOR either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per the above. I guess I wouldn't be opposed in principle to having "umbrella" articles that cover a collection of MathWorld topics that aren't individually notable, but that's a discussion for another day. In practice, the content we keep seeing for these only-on-OEIS-and-MathWorld terms just isn't worth keeping around. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete. {{Cite book}} added, still fails GNG. Sam Sailor 06:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. While there was a split opinion at the outset, the addition of transclusions seems to have resolved certain issues. There seems consensus that the ability to find these details in a single location vs the current 13 means that it is not a Redundant Fork. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

List of current judges of the United States courts of appeals

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

I was just alerted about the existence of this article. We currently have List of articles for all the extant United States Court of Appeals and this really seems redundant and unnecessary. While I appreciate the effort of the creator, who is a new editor, this really wasn't needed and is not really helpful. Delete as redundant. Safiel (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Safiel When you get a chance could you please link the articles you think this is duplicating? I can't seem to locate them. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
We already have numerous lists and templates for United States courts and judges. Every new thing added is something that must constantly be updated, so a point is reached when we must seriously consider what is useful and what is wasteful. Safiel (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they are not technically in the list of format, but they serve the exact purpose. Safiel (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was looking for a single article which is why I came up short. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Add Template:United States courts of appeals judges to that list. – JocularJellyfish _Contribs 01:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete This page is redundant, as Safiel (talk · contribs) has already demonstrated, and is just another page that has to be kept up to date, with little resulting benefit. I appreciate the article creator's effort, but they would very helpful by contributing to existing pages in the Wikiproject. – JocularJellyfish _Contribs 01:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment Upon further thought, I did what SHOULD have been done in the first place. I removed the tables and transcluded from our existing tables, thus eliminating the need to regularly update this article, should it continue to exist. Since the question of whether it is actually needed has not been substantially addressed, ~~I will maintain my delete stance and let this AfD proceed.~~ However, at least I have solved the problem of extra work, this article would require no further regular updating. Safiel (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment PLEASE READ - FROM THE ORGINAL CREATOR. I created this list because I was searching in vain for a list of all the appeals court judges in one location. The list exists nowhere on the internet (after a pretty thorough search). I was interested in a list because of the recent supreme court hoopla and many nominees come from the appeals courts. It's just convenient to have them in one place. It gives you a solid overview of the system visually. It allows you to quickly compare the courts. The data on the nominating president is critical because it gives you an idea of the ideological balance of the court and the appeals court as a whole. All that said, its become of a bit of a passion project and my introduction to being an editor on wikipedia. I've spent many hours on it even though the core data comes from the existing appeals courts pages. Updating it isnt bad at all. Once a month I go to the pages and bring the data to my main list. I'll add that the page is already seeing hundreds of views daily - some people are interested. I cannot see a good reason to delete the page. I appreciate your concern and for taking the time to adress some issues and for the past work you've done on wikipedia. But I'd really like to keep this page going. At the least maybe we can assess six months from now? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment Misplaced Pages data is intentionally sorted in a variety of ways, for example alphabetically, by year, or by category. It is a shortcoming of the wiki's format that they cannot all be queried at once, but this is only because most of the time there is no use for such a massive query. If you need a query of that nature, I would recommend wikidata, though it seems matching a judge to a jurisdiction is not trivial and may be impossible with the current scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpet113 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Template:United States courts of appeals judges and the "Current composition of the court" sections in the above-mentioned articles suffices. There does not need to be multiple lists that list the same thing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 12:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Leaning Keep While it is a fork of existing info, I would argue it is still useful because you can get all info in one place, rather than having to find and read 13 articles. As for the template, that has be kind of on the fence, but I know people don't always scroll down to the bottom to see that template. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep, the nominator claims this is redundant...to 13 separate articles. That's obviously not functionally equivalent to having this information indexed in one place, and I can only see it as useful to the reader to organize those 13 separate sublists together in one list. We can see in one place how many currently serving judges for all the COA were appointed by each president, how many COAs have vacancies, etc. The delete !voters above also do not seem to question this, as they seem to have no issue with the template. Maintenance is not an argument for deletion here as the bench does not change so rapidly that it can't be kept up with. There is also no issue to having both a list and a navigational template cover the same content; see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep The issue of UPDATING HAS BEEN FIXED. Since the data connects automatically to the 13 other pages, there is no need to ever update this page. The benefits are having 13 data sets in one place to quickly and more effectively compare. The downsides are none, except putting 4 kb of data on the wiki servers. IMHO there is no rational reason to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nature mr allnut (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep A combined list seems fully appropriate to me. I like Safiel's rather clever transclusions and I'm pleased the article creator is happy with this approach. Thank you, both. Thincat (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Shifting from delete to keep as nominator I would withdraw and close this, but since there are active delete votes I cannot do that. Unfortunately, I did NOT think of the tranclusion option before I nominated this. With regular maintenance no longer required, the utility of this article now well exceeds the effort required to maintain it, which frankly was my main concern at the beginning. We are five days in on this AfD, only two days to wait for it to expire. Safiel (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Changing vote from Delete to Keep I made my original delete vote before Safiel's creative solution of transcluding tables took effect. Since the majority of the premise of my delete vote was based on the need to update another page, I don't see it as fair to keep my vote on this AfD the same. While I still have some reservations about how useful this article actually is, at this point I don't see any need for it to be deleted. – JocularJellyfish _Contribs 22:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. North America 13:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Liz Durrett

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No assertion of notability independent of the subject or independent of tour dates, track listings or lyrical databases. Even the single reference that's on this page is no longer working.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep ~~Delete Fails the GNG, not enough indepth coverage specifically about herself.~~ L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing per below, I now see I was looking at the wrong Liz Durrett. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC via multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Allmusic (, , ), Pitchfork (, , ), NPR (), PopMatters (), No Depression (), Riverfront Times (). --Michig (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I could tell, there were no reviews in the search I performed. This nomination was based on what I'd found, but given the sources you've provided, I'll withdraw this nomination.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)