Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 July	9 July >

Guide to deletion

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. Sandstein 18:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Viciana

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Only sources that list them are B&N website and IMDB, the latter of which cannot be used to illustrate notability. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is a translation of es:Josep Viciana. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the sources provided don't pass WP:NPERSON or the the notability test for En-wiki. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 23:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations are identical to those in the corresponding Catalan and Spanish articles. The screenaustralia.gov.au one looked promising - but then I opened it, and discovered that it contained nothing more than his name. A search turned up no WP:RS independent sources at all. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 09:25, 16 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic of Thinking Big

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

Non-notable book by a non-notable author (whose biographical article I have just nominated for deletion also). This article, like the author's article, is purely promotional. The only sources are primary or minor. In a search I could find nothing about this book in Reliable Sources, and I could not verify the claim that it sold over 4 million copies. If others of you are better at searching and come up with evidence that it is notable, the article will require a major trimming and rewrite to get rid of the promotional material and make it encyclopedic; WP:TNT might be preferable. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with David J. Schwartz (motivational writer) according to my reasoning here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall)~~
Merge with David J. Schwartz (motivational writer). I'm in agreement with the reasons laid out by Frayae. In addition, I would add that this book was originally published in 1959 and is still on sale today. 4 million copies sold would not be out of line for a book with that staying power. I'm assuming the promotional verbiage comes from newer recruits and the fact that the book was reprinted in 2014. A look at Youtube shows that there are several audio versions of the book posted as well as numerous reviews--that is amazing given the original publishing date. I'm studying and writing articles on publishing history, and would think this book has a place in the pantheon of notable books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs)

this book has a place in the pantheon of notable books -- I'm confused. Your saying it's notable, but !voting against an article. See WP:NBOOK. -- GreenC 19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I removed the unreliable sources and promotional content and added reliable sources. There are plenty more reliable sources by searching Google News. This is widely considered a "classic" self-help book. -- GreenC 20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has gone through massive changes since being nominated. [1] Forbes putting it on its list of its greatest self-help books, it having over a million confirmed sales, plus the rest, clearly confirm its notability. Dream Focus 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you all have convinced me. I withdraw the nomination. Nice work by User:StrayBolt and User:GreenC. Note that this does not allow for a speedy close of this nomination since there were some !votes for a merge. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly decent separate article after rewrite. No need to merge. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GreenC and what Frayae said at the author's AfD. Editions of 1959, 1965 and 1987 (the number of editions is is an indicator of popularity). Simon and Schuster actually claim sales of six million, not four: [2]. James500 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nomination, the article has been revamped. The nomination was withdrawn. Snowycats (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Schwartz (motivational writer)

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

This article should have been deleted years ago. The subject fails GNG; the only sources are primary, and in a search I could find no secondary coverage. The article is so promotional it is embarrassing. I was going to remove the most blatant promotional material, but it would have meant blanking the whole article. Let's just delete it instead. We could redirect to the article about his book, but I intend to nominate that for deletion too, for the same reasons. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In further searching I found one actual reference - a scholarship offered in his name at Georgia State University - and in fairness I have added it to the article. My recommendation to delete has not changed. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With his main work (The Magic of Thinking Big) published in 1959 I doubt much is in Google. I found a Kirkus review from 1983. The scholarship in his name is something to do with his being a professor at that university, sources confirming this are available but are primary to the university. I went behind paywall and found articles such as^[a]^[b]^[c]^[d]^[e]^[f]^[g] the general theme in these independent sources is positive, with almost all the sources calling him an 'expert' and 'well known', also describing his book as a 'bestseller' and a 'classic'. I could go further but the most part of sources are people giving short snippets from the book to describe their success. While that's nice, it does not help notability to list hundreds of mentions, and these do clutter the search results. I don't think any of this is very strong, but it should be sufficient to merge the book article into this and have a reasonably well sourced stub. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Monitor 2011, 12 books Seth Godin thinks you should read, Boston, Mass.
^ "What's On Your 'Must-Read List?'." Broker. (October 2001 / November 2001 ): 797 words. Nexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2018/07/08.
^ Willoughby, M. 2015, "Ignoring fear", The Mississippi Business Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 11.
^ Johnson, L. 1999, "A reading list for those who want to succeed", Management Today, , pp. 98.
^ Clary, J.M., Hadari, M.K., Holmwood, A.B., Schmidt, S.A. & Shapiro, R.S. 1994, "Sales ideas from young Top of the Table producers", Life & Health Insurance Sales, vol. 137, no. 5, pp. 6.
^ Zailskas, S. 2007, "Book It", Professional Builder, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 29.
^ "You've Got to Read This Book: 55 People Tell the Story of the Book That Changed Their Life", 2006, Publishers Weekly, vol. 253, no. 27, pp. 68.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bit of history - The thoughts articulated by the author inspired me to open a wiki page about him, in spite of having limited online references. The intent while creating the skeletal wiki page of Mr. Schwartz was that it would be later appended with more content & references by fellow Wikipedians. However, that wasn't the case and I do agree with user MelamieN regarding the sad state of the page. Instead of deleting it, couldn't it be edited? ; Julius (Talk)
Comment To me, the sources that Frayae found are not Reliable Sources as required to meet WP:GNG. They are more the kind of sources that will uncritically praise something and/or repeat whatever the author has said about himself. (If we could find independent confirmation of the claimed 4 million sales, that would certainly help.) We still have virtually no Reliable Sources about him. But I agree that it can be hard to find material on pre-Internet subjects. Anyhow, if the consensus here turns out to be Keep despite the poor sourcing, I will take responsibility for putting the article in shape. That would involve summarizing or removing almost all of the current content, which is almost entirely promotional; adding a few references such as the ones Frayae found; and reducing it to an encyclopedic stub, which is a perfectly acceptable form of Wikipedia article provided it is sourced. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ MelanieN alt (talk) That would be helpful. Julius (talk)

Julius Do you think I should do it now - so that people can evaluate his notability (or lack of same) without all the distracting puffery? I have usually disliked it when people gut an article and then nominate it for deletion, but since it wouldn't involve removing any SOURCED material maybe it would actually make the discussion easier. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the idea. I pruned it a bit and think that most of whats left is sourcable. But feel free to go further. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Frayae. I think the subject can now be evaluated for notability and (I still insist as required by GNG) whether it has the required references to independent, reliable sources. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the opportunity to add some content from the magic of thinking big article, and a variety of mostly unreliable sources. Theres two claims which keep appearing but I can't verify, one is the oft cited 6 million copies sold figure, and the other is a claim it was a New York Times Bestseller. I don't know how to conclusively prove or disprove either claims so I have both in there. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I loved your edit summary "That's enough unreliable sources for now"! You have worked hard on this article, thank you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone & @MelanieN alt to join late for the discussion. Noted the page has been summarised perfectly. Thank you all for the edits. :) --Julius (talk)

Keep. Qualifies for WP:NACADEMIC Criteria #5. He held the "chair of consumer finance at Georgia Slate College, which is sponsored by the Georgia Consumer Finance Association". StrayBolt (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you quoting from, StrayBolt? There are three references cited for this information but I was unable to use them to confirm it. The article contains one Reliable Source, namely the Georgia State University page about the scholarship in his name, but the only position it reports for him is professor of marketing.[3] You would think, if he had also been chair of a department or head of a sponsored unit of the college, that they would have mentioned that. (In any case I'm not sure that being chair of an independently funded department or subdepartment or whatever it was, is equivalent to holding a named professorship which would qualify him per WP:ACADEMIC.) --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Xenia, OH newspaper (it is in the article or search for the quote). Here is a GSU page saying he was "chair of the marketing department"[4]. The meritpages.com probably got his middle initial wrong from a typo like from here[5]. Perhaps it doesn't qualify under #5 where in his case it was an organization-named annually(?) sponsored chair, but not an endowed chair. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has left a message on the talk page. Should we move it to the right place? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged a reply. Since they said they were unsure, moving does not seem inappropriate (unlike the norm of not changing people's posts). You can delete my reply if you move it. StrayBolt (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AUTHOR he is notable because of what he created, his book selling over a million copies and getting ample praise. Decades after his book came out, it is still mentioned in business articles like this one [6], they even quoting him at the end of it. Had a lasting effect. Others notable people credit his work to their success. Dream Focus 22:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and Frayae. James500 (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:AUTHOR guidelines. I agree that he has expert quality of work. Snowycats (talk) 03:39, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of I Know What You Did Last Summer characters

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

WP:UNIVERSE WP:FANCRUFT detail of character bios from I Know What You Did Last Summer (film series). Article content has no citations and is rehash of plot from films, providing no additional character exposition. Many characters appear in a single scene and/or are not integral to plot of film nor series. AldezD (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, unnecessary list. 344917661X (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources and WP:FANCRUFT issues. Snowycats (talk) 03:42, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Flood

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

Mayor of a small city. Only cited sources are city records, an unpublished memoir, and his obituary in the local paper. No evidence subject meets the WP:GNG Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taunton MA is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors, but this article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over NPOL #2. Apart from one obituary in the local newspaper, which is not enough sourcing to constitute a magic GNG pass all by itself, this is otherwise sourced entirely to the city's own self-published records in its own municipal archive, and a colleague's unpublished memoir — neither of which are notability-assisting sources. And considering the dichotomy between how long the article is and how few sources are actually being cited, there's almost certainly some original research in here as well. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, not enough for WP:GNG; doesn't get the WP:NPOL notability pass; and reads almost like a memorial. SportingFlyer talk 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Non-notable mayor. Sources aren't up to standards either. Snowycats (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of a city with 43,000 people when he was mayor. It might be worth mentioning both him and his father in the article on the high school, and maybe brief mentions in the article on the city, but nothing justifies a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pals for Life

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

This is a procedural nomination for this page due to its apparent non-notability based on the hour-long conversation on IRC with the page creator arguing with DragonflySixtyseven about getting the related image deleted. From the edit history it looks like various parties have been attempting (and failing) to nominate the page properly, so I'm being nice and doing it for them. I have no opinions on the page, and have not done any BEFORE. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the news Google pulls up is about the films. Instead they either use the phrasing, are about various charities, or a World of Warcraft guild that counts the infamous Leeroy Jenkins among its number and discussing the staged nature of that video. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regrets, as this seems to be a worthy creative work that should get more attention than it has received. I also found similar sources, and when adding "World War I" to the search query in news and newspapers I would get only one irrelevant result. If anyone else can find a couple of valid sources beyond the blog already cited in the article, I will heartily change my vote. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News does not find any significant coverage of the film, so it fails WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author asked for the article to be delete as they created it for marketing reasons. Also fails WP:NFILM. Snowycats (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as immediately above. Bondegezou (talk) 22:10, 15 July 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 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kisi Se Dil Lagaake Dekho

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

Unreleased film that fails on WP:GNG. No credible evidence of notability can be found as per WP:NFO or WP:NFF. Hitro talk 20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in rs for this unreleased film. If the director gets an article it can be mentioned there, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The film was never released and never even hinted at being something of a curio or a cult item. Subject fails all notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 11:08, 16 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan 101

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails on WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Hitro talk 20:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Completely non-notable musician who occasionally makes tunes and plays live, but not even unreliable sources exist, never mind reliable ones. Article creation was the only Wikipedia edit by a WP:SPA back in 2013. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (none of the labels his recordings are featured on are important or even have Wikipedia aricles) or the wp:gng - almost no coverage in independent reliable sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Lack of reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Snowycats (talk) 03:44, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Social Action

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

as far as I can see, fails WP:GNG. Promo The Banner talk 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references provided are very minor. I checked several and they appear to be either self-published or simply fact-based listings akin to contact pages. Fails GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a prolific publisher, but I struggled to find any independent citations to it's research activity. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable sources. Snowycats (talk) 03:46, 15 July 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 first "retain" opinion does not address our inclusion criteria. Sandstein 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Peace Community

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search for this one as it has two good references. unfortunately I did not find additional refs. I removed Google maps being used as a ref in the article. Fails GNG as it does not have adequate RS.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Such a large institution that serves all of Zimbabwe's AIDS orphans deserves to be noted, even though the press is not going to rub peoples' noses in the problems created by relatives who will not take in these orphans, at least until they are old enough to work. Also, I suggest the restoral of the gallery which was just deleted. It nicely complements the article. Jzsj (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sympathy is seldom reason to keep an article when there are no or just a few sources. The Banner talk 12:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic: What does God think?

But "common sense" points out that the few sources are all we can expect from such an embarrassing, though outstanding, work. Jzsj (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life is not always fair. The Banner talk 12:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe that God will reward those who keep up the struggle for all that is good, and especially of benefit to the poorest of the poor. Jzsj (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, take the God talk and stuff it into an available orifice in a wall or something. It is entirely inappropriate to come to AfD and talk about how god will reward you. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They will be rewarded with a place in Heaven but without sources they will not get an article. The Banner talk 13:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you, for the benefit of the 158 or so orphans, not for me. Jzsj (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NORG

"Mother of Peace Community assists abandoned, orphaned children - NewsDay Zimbabwe". www.newsday.co.zw. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
Marufu, Ntombizodwa G. THE CHANGING SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE FAMILY: THE CASE OF CHILDREN’S HOMES IN ZIMBABWE Pages 140-142 Diss. University of Zimbabwe, 2014.
Olamide, Young (2017-10-25). "Man arrested for raping and killing Reverend Sister while she prayed - INFORMATION NIGERIA". INFORMATION NIGERIA. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
"Orphanage houses over 100 children". Zimbabwe Independent. June 28, 2013. p. 10.
New African. IC Magazines Limited. 2002.(Can't access content, but appears to be non-trivial discussion)
"Community leader honoured". News24. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
Brooks, Jesse (January 12, 2012). "Bay Area Churches Support Zimbabwe Orphanage". The Post News. Retrieved 2018-07-10.
Thompson, Theresa (August 25, 2015). "Artists help to raise funds for orphanage". The Oxford Times. Retrieved 2018-07-10.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (editted to number cites 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

WP:RS? Anyone? The Banner talk 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a waste of other editors' time and resources to try and pass off such poor sources as supporting the notability of the article. The second source given above is a dissertation. Not RS. The third mentions the fact that a woman who got murdered who happened to pass by the orphanage the day of her death. Trivial. The fourth source is ISSU.com. Self published, not RS. We do not know what the fourth source says, as it is only snipped view. The seventh source, the postnewsgroup, is not independent as at the end of the article it calls for donations. The Publication also looks sketchy. The last source, the Oxfortimes, is in-depth about a fundraiser for the orphanage, but only a passing mention of orphanage. As The Banner says, these have serious RS problems. At most we are looking at one or two reliable sources, and they are not very high quality. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to (2), a PHD thesis can be a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Grace Ntombizodwa Mugabe's thesis has recieved significant coverage in the mainstream meadia [7] [8], but the coverage tends to indicate this thesis is not considered a reliable source.

With respect to (4), the Zimbabwe Independent is a mainstream newspaper. The fact that is is distributed via ISSU.com does not discount it’s credibility.

I agree that (7) is not a RS. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources:

Ndangariro, Ndangariro. "Mother of Peace gets early Xmas present". The Herald.
Sifile, Vusumuzi (April 13, 2006). "Zimind donates to two charities - The Zimbabwe Independent". Zimbabwe Independent.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, another two sources of corporate-see-how-good-we-are-to-donate-a-minimal-amount-of-money type. The Banner talk 09:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two new sources are news reports about small donations to an unknown school. Like most of the reporting here, it's local trivia. The problem with this article and most of the other small Jesuit school articles at hand is that they have been created out of a belief that Jesuit organizations serving socially and economically under-represented and under-serviced populations are morally well-served by having first-world English Wikipedia articles that may help their status, even if the sources are nonexistent or inadequate. It's God's work, thinly veiled, to put it plainly. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per analysis by IP.No significant hits in newspaper archives, either.∯WBG^converse 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" would suggest that the country's newspapers have no reason to showcase that such an effort is needed. And the orphans don't buy newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject failing WP:GNG. This is one of those occasions where some arguments are so strongly infected by sentiment and emotion that we need to douse the place afterwards with a repellent. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nationwide project with the government kicking it off because of the AIDS epidemic. This is not just one project like many others. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mistake my suggestion here to delete the contested article with my personal sentiments about such projects. But, per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is explicitly not the means or the place for advocacy or agitation or even sympathy for a cause, no matter how noble the cause may be. Wikipedia may, as a foundation, assist good causes in many ways, but the content itself is shaped according to encyclopaedic policies and guidelines. We keep, or at least I try to keep, separate the encyclopaedia from the activism. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too much to expect that Wikipedia's reviewers and deleters start going by the same playbook? For two years and nine months I went by the guideline that a charity with national scope and one reasonably independent source was notable, it seemed like "common sense" and satisfied the reviewers. Now I find my articles subject to a new playbook. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 16 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retch (rapper)

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

This page had been PRODed and speedied multiple times since 2016 for the same reasons as in the note tags here, appears to be non-notable and no reliable sources other than self published ones. Additionally this act and most of the linked associated acts have been repeatedly linked to sockpuppets (for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Rtjfan) that exist only to promote them. Looking at the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinluciddreamjr of the creator of this page this appears to be yet another set of promotional efforts for non-notable musicians. JamesG5 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why this is listed in the "Artists-related deletion discussions". He should be in music or something similar.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article to support a claim of notability and nothing else I could find in a Google search that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of releases mentioned in the article, but none of them have garnered significant critical or commercial attention. Newslinger (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient (which is to say pretty much no) WP:reliable sources to establish notability. If the promotional music track lists are the best that can be found for this artist, it is small wonder that this has never survived speedy deletions or PRODs. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Snowycats (talk) 03:47, 15 July 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imrich Barta

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

No sources to support that he is notable as a person, architect, or painter. It seems that almost nothing on him in the article can be verified. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article on Barta has a very interesting history. The article in the English-language WP was created in February 2010. The article in the Slovak-language WP was created two years later, as a translation of the article in English. Until lately in the Slovakian article there was a no footnotes tag [9], removed by an IP, without good reason. This IP has started to translate the article in other WPs ([10], [11]), even recreating it in the Czech-language WP [12], where it had been deleted in 2010 for lacking notability [13], [14]. In the meantime this IP persistently removes the notability, or the no footnote tags from the Barta articles of several language editions, although nothing has changed concerning the sources, references, and verification of its content [15], [16], [17]. Even after I had proposed this article for deletion, this IP tried to remove all tags [18] [19], [20]. All these may point to a cross-wiki job to "force" Barta's notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand you... you have many sources there, just because you dont understand the language you want to delete entire page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.10.38 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this version of the article, the latest at this moment:

Refs ##1,2,4 [21] are identical, and are just a link to the cover of a book, as it is listed in the webpage of a bookshop.
Refs ##3,6 [22] are identical, just mentioning Barta in passing, as one of the architetcs that designed a project ("Naprojektovaný a realizovaný bol v rokoch 1959 až 1963, jeho autormi sú architekti Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta"). While adding this information you didn't even wrote that, οmitting the other name mentioned in the source, by writing in the article that only "Barta was architect of Bratislava´s city quarter called Ružová Dolina between the years 1959-1963" [23], though he was not alone in that [24] according to the source.
Ref #5 [25] is a extract from the aforementioned book. The only thing we get to know from this pdf is from the name index of the book (p. 485), that there is a reference to Barta on page 244, but we can't see what kind of reference is that. It is quite interesting that in the "Biografie architektov" (=Biography of architects) section of the book there is a biography of Eugen Barta (p. 465), but not of Imrich Barta (biographies are in alphabetical order: before Eugen Barta is Zoltan Balit, and follows Peter Bauer).
in Ref #7 [26] the only thing about Barta is this "5/ 1959-1963: Ružová dolina (1 110 bytov) architekti: Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta", something we already know from Refs ##3,6.

These are the "many sources there". ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that claiming an editor went to the trouble of translating the English Wiki article into Slovenian in order to boost notability is a bit of a stretch.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well 96.127.242.226, there is no translation into Slovenian (sl:Slovenščina); sk:Slovenčina means Slovak language. The person behind the 178.59…/176.92… etc IPs translated the article in English on Barta into German, Czech, and Italian; the article in the Italian-language WP has been already speedily deleted [27] after tagged by myself. These IPs are all Greek, and their provider is Cyta Hellas, the Greek branch of the a Cyprus telecommunications company. The Greek article on Barta was created by another Cyta Hellas IP [28] (Cyta Hellas has no more than 16% of the Greek telecommunications market), just a line in the beginning, and then another user -who has nothing to do with the abovementioned IPs- translated to Greek the whole article from the English-language WP. Later the 176/178… IPs were also involved. It is very interesting that 176.92.127.118 added to the text (without a source as the rule is) that Barta's Greek origin was from Salonica [29]. In Sk-WP it was also created this stub that has to do with Barta too (the only verifible content about his activities). The Greek IPs were also busy in removing repedately the notability and no footnotes templates from Barta's articles, and adding unreferenced content about his activities in some articles of several language versions of WP [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. ΙP 178.59.10.38 also claimed in a file deletion discussion at Commons concerning Barta that she/he is the owner of a Barta's painting picturing the Blumental Church in Bratislava; Barta, according to the article on him besides an architect he was supposed to be a painter too, who as stated in the article "He [had] created many oil paintings in the style of Van Gogh", and that "After his death his works became exclusive and marketable". All evidence support that there is a "promotional" cross-wiki job undertook by these Greek IPs, and this is either WP:COI, or trolling. I cannot think of something else to expalain facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice detective work. However I do not think such activity is anything to worry about. What happens on other wikis happens. We can handle the notability here without reference to other wikis, even given collusion, conspiracy, meat and sockpuppets should they come along.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is ridiculous. Imrich Barta was not a famous painter, and did not bring many Americans to visit Bratislava to see works "in the style of Van Gogh". Americans who want to see van Goghs go to the Van Gogh Museum or the Kröller-Müller Museum, not to Bratislava to visit the non-existent Imrich Barta Museum or any of the fine museums of Bratislava, none of who appear to gave an Imrich Barta in their collections. Vexations (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He seems to have some reliable source coverage as an architect, although none at all as a painter. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Chalk19's additional sleuthing. A person who fails WP:NPERSON, an architect who fails WP:ARCHITECT, and a painter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Trifecta! -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 16 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CloudBuy

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage Uhooep (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; borders on WP:G11. Beyond that, does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant news coverage from reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and not notable. Fails WP:NCORP. Snowycats (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 15 July 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 OpenGL#Associated libraries. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGL User Interface Library

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

Completing on behalf of an IP. Their rationale is “not notable and has no references.” Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References available on Google Scholar. ISBN-13: 978-0387689920 also references. I've added some to article. As given IP does not seem to have notified contributors likely inadequate WP:BEFORE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenGL. The GS citations are not remotely enough for notability. All they show is that WP:EXIST. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to OpenGL. Still not enough reliable sources to be notable. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into OpenGL#Associated libraries.~~ Not notable enough on its own, but it's a perfect match as a subsection here. Newslinger (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not perfect as the result may have undue weight compared to the other libraries in the section which have their own article, which either result in undue weight in an already longish target article which has its own issues which are possibly more important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenGL#Associated libraries. That's true. Newslinger (talk) 05:09, 19 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South End, Moncton

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

It is extremely questionable whether this neighborhood exists or not. The only place it comes up on the internet is this very article. Besides, even if it did exist, the population is minimal and there is nothing distinguishing it from the rest of Moncton. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cities and towns in Canada's Maritime provinces often were made up of distinct areas characterised by income, ethnicity, language and religious affiliation. This study https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/Acadiensis/article/viewFile/10782/11552 discusses the history of the North End of Saint John, New Brunswick. I am quite prepared to believe that Moncton neighbourhoods a century ago had different demographics, and that these changed as a result of industrialisation and deindustrialization, the changing role of governments, increasing rights and income for Catholics and francophones, and suburban sprawl. There ought to be references that document these changes. Whether those references can save this article is another matter. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided that vouch for the actual conceptual existence of the neighborhood. And if there are sources, but not much to them, it's likely best to merge and redirect to the city's article. —innotata 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced article. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Every city that exists at all has north, south, east and west parts — so you can't just automatically reify "Cardinal Direction + City" into a neighbourhood, in the absence of reliable sourcing about that neighbourhood being recognized as a thing. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources - WP:RS Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emet Comics

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Much of the page was copyvio (a direct copy-paste of the company's titles), and page is also promotional in tone. Secondary coverage limited to trade publications, which WP:ORGIND recommends against using to gauge notability. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible speedy delete. Page was speedily deleted and then recreated in the past, other creator pages have been marked for CSD in the past as well. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 9 July 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. ansh 666 07:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azme Alishan

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

I don't think this event was so significant that WP needs an article on this topic. No encyclopedic value with very little coverage, mostly routine. Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced original research. Fails WP:NORG / WP:NEVENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Azme Alishan Campaign (2010 - 2013) was a nationwide social awareness campaign in Pakistan. I was able to find news coverage on this campaign by 3 major newspapers -- Dawn, The Express Tribune and The Nation (Pakistan). So I have added 8 new references to the article from them. True, the article was left unsourced to begin with. Looked to me that article title (Azme Alishan) was also incomplete. It was a 3 year campaign according to the newspapers, so I Moved page to add the word Campaign to the article title. Redid the article as best as I could. It reminds me of "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign launched by former first lady Nancy Reagan in the 1980s in the US. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry I forgot to mention for our non-Urdu-speaking readers, Azme Alishan Campaign means The Great Resolve Campaign. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No impact in longer term, part of routine patriotic events, fails WP:NEVENT. Reagan's campaign created impact hence meets WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: No impact? How can you say that with such AUTHORITY? Many independent newspapers gave the campaign news coverage for 3 years. Can you be also asked to back your conclusion up with a reliable reference here that the campaign had no impact? Just because you are a Deletion nominator, you should give it a thought before you dismiss so quickly other people's work on this Discussion Forum. I have spent some time improving this article. I at least acknowledged above that the article was unreferenced, when you nominated it for Deletion. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Let's graciously sidestep the WP:OR violation and cite WP:NEVENT. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, It was NOT a SINGLE EVENT lasting for a couple of days somewhere. It was a nationwide Social Awareness Campaign where music concerts by famous musicians and sports events for its benefit were held for a period of 3 years in the 2 largest cities of Pakistan -- Lahore and Karachi. News coverage of this campaign by many independent reliable newspapers persisted over a period of 3 years. Please note that Original Research (OR) and the article being unreferenced problem was solved, when I spent time on improving it and redid the article and provided 8 new references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fails to NEVENT. Otherwise there's an automatic bias in favor of one-time events, which manages to gain a few articles during that span against events that happen consecutively every year (for a few years) and hence manages to get the same number of articles, every year at the time of happening. Thus, as I look at whether the event has been any mentioned in a significant manner post-completion of it's course or mentioned in any scholarly source/book(s), I spot nothing which emphasizes the failure of NEVENT.∯WBG^converse 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Dounias

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

No evidence of notability; most sources found are MP3 downloads, etc. Non-notable musician; fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 14:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must admitt I don't speak Greek (I'm just a fan of older laiko music), so finding sources are a little harder for me (at least, here is his archived official site: [35]), plus he belongs to an older generation. However, Mr. Dounias definitely fits WP:MUSICBIO, where it is stated that a musician "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

He had press coverage. For example, here he is on a cover of an 80's weekly periodical: [36] and there are numerous interviews with him even nowadays
"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels": He had albums on Polydor Records, Columbia Records
"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style": two of his singles were released in Yugoslavia as a representative of Greek folk music in the mid-70's by PGP RTB: [37] and he was featured on at least 3 compilations representing Greek music from 1960 until 1990 [38], released by Phillips: [39]
Although I can't find any info about his sales or chart positions, if someone is active as a musician for 50 years professionally and has greatest hits collections released regularly, he probably had some success. I guess Greek members of Wikipedia could help with that. StjepanHR (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs is not a reliable source though. Can you prove your claims by citing reliable sources? The editor whose username is Z0 16:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - For releases on major labels, it is enough to see album covers, and they are provided on Mr. Dounias' official page: [40] and some of them have label logo (like EMI). And unless somebody photoshoped all of his album covers, even Discogs pictures would be usable for that, even though Discogs is not entirely reliable for some other uses.StjepanHR (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple releases on Polydor and other major record labels, as shown on discogs.com, indicates notability. For a Greek-language singer, it's important to search on the Greek version of his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to verify your claim as I've found no reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here you go [41]ShoesssS ^Talk 13:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A legend of Greek popular singing" as Ref #3 to the Greek mainstream media Lifo states: "θρύλος του λαϊκού τραγουδιού". Among other things [42], the title song from his 1973 LP Ταρζάν, and the song "Tου άντρα του πολλά βαρύ" from the same album, both composed by the famous Greek composer Yannis Markopoulos, were major hits in Greece [43], and they are beloved songs up till now. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Enough coverage from secondary – verifiable – reliable sources to include here at Wikipedia. In addition, I have added references from Billboard 100 into the article showing multiple releases from Polydor Records and Philips Records. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:16, 17 July 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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Carters

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

Contains no content that can't be included / isn't already included in Everything Is Love or the artists' respective discography articles. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per sources searches, qualifies for a standalone article per meeting WP:GNG and WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their songs and album have charted, so they pass WP:BAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - #6 (is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians). Has charts, airplay, etc. The editor whose username is Z0 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that NMUSIC and GNG are not hard rules that insist everyone who meets those criteria need articles. The point is that this is an unnecessary content fork, a stub with information that is easily contained – if not already present – in Everything Is Love (the only release by the duo as a collective), Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and their respective discography articles Jay-Z albums discography, Jay-Z singles discography, and Beyoncé discography. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge into Everything Is Love. If this duo had more albums together, I'd say Keep, but they've only had one album and single so far and there collaborations can be mentioned in the retrospective Beyonce and Jay-Z articles. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Everything Is Love this is a blatant content fork of that record and it's too soon for a separate page until Beyoncé and Jay-Z at least release another album under this joint name as pretty much everything here is already covered there and/or the artists' respective discography pages. Nothing of value would be lost. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything Is Love was credited to "The Carters," not "Beyoncé and Jay-Z." This separates this article from The Throne (group), which was redirected to Watch The Throne because that album was credited to "Jay-Z and Kanye West." Newslinger (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia wil be the laughingstock of social media if we delete this. 01:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

With no personal comment intended, who gives a fuck? Wikipedia never worried and hopefully never worry about what social media's tittering about. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Snowycats (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because subject easily meets WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 16 July 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 is that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Westerhout

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

We don't have articles about secretaries. There now seems to be a tendency to write about everyone working at the White House for Trump, even in the most junior role; we don't do that for any other country. Her job is a menial one. Tataral (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If reliable sources ccver her, she is notable. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize her role as "menial". Besides, Rose Mary Woods. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Woods was a key figure in the Watergate scandal and only got a Wikipedia article after that and a career spanning decades. There is no evidence that Westerhout has any comparable historical significance (of course, if she played a comparable role in events leading to Trump's impeachment, she might become notable). We can't have articles about any secretary, janitor or gardener working at the White House just because their boss happens to be an influential politician. We don't have such articles about French or German or Polish secretaries to government figures. This article is really emblematic of the special treatment the US gets compared to other countries, which needs to stop. --Tataral (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Eastmain: if someone is covered in RS, then GNG is met. It doesn't matter why they're covered at all. Also, arguing that there aren't comparable articles for other countries, so we shouldn't have this one isn't valid. If there's not comparable coverage in other countries, then we can't write about that person. If there is comparable coverage, then go ahead and write about the secretaries. If they're women, we can put together a good redlist for Women in Red and sponsor an editathon on the topic. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is of the human interest type. It is not the level of indepth reliable source coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily per Eastmain. Individual has been covered by WP:RS, and proposing deletion on the grounds that their job "is a menail one" is insufficient at best. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is simply not true that "We don't have articles about secretaries." Twelve of the 17 other Personal Secretaries to the President listed on Wikipedia do have an article. When a secretary holds a position of national political importance, it is appropriate to have an article. Political historians write about these figues because they are significant. --Albany NY (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Repeating my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Estes Kavanaugh: I don't mean to go all WP:WAX, but it strikes me of similar importance to Evelyn Lincoln, Grace Tully, etc. The list at the heading Personal secretary to the President shows that most such secretaries have Wikipedia articles. The article should be improved, perhaps; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJRC, reliable sources cover her, she is notable. Thazinkoko (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert - I definitely agree with above sentiments, there are a lot of notable women we still don't have articles on, but all I am seeing here are a few fluff pieces - nothing to suggest the lasting notability that's needed for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The nominator should probably withdraw the comment about secretarial work being menial. I completely agree that the deciding factor here is WP:RS, and I don't think there are enough here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 15 July 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 is that NACADEMIC is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Grossman

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

The subject is not notable; all sources are from the subject's own institution (MIT), and are not independent. No additional, independent sources were found on google, google books, and google news searches. Edit-llama (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the holder of a named chair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The named chair itself isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article, so the person wouldn't be notable just by holding that chair. Newslinger (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reviewed WP:NACADEMIC regarding the named chair. Article needs significant expansion. Newslinger (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #1 (has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline) and #5 (has held a named chair at MIT). The criterion #1 can be satisfy by his citation count (e.g. [44] cited by 821 [45] cite by 950) according to Google Scholar [46] (over 14,000 in total). He is also covered in other articles - e.g Scientific American Popular Science Physics.org, therefore he also satisfies WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to having such a clear pass of WP:PROF as to call into question the competence of the nominator, there is plenty of popular press for his work, some of which I have added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, named chair at MIT, that is already enough to pass WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Faroe

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

Not notable singer. Clearly WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete competing in a singing competition does not give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Being one of multiple contestants on a television show is not a significant assertion of notability. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For sure WP:TOOEARLY. Also has WP:GNG issues. Snowycats (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Linguisticgeek (talk)
Delete she was on a reality-TV singing competition in 2010. The only information after that I can find is appearing on a 2016 Youtube-based competition. There's insufficient significant coverage of her to meet WP:GNG; I doubt this is a WP:TOOSOON case, she's not a notable singer now and probably never will be one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 15 July 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 07:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resa (newspaper)

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

Non-notable newspaper. Just created this year. One source, which is merely a promotional piece from a Sri Lankan site. Enigma^msg 21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There might be some useful Sinhala-language references at this search (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this meets the GNG. If the article creator couldn't find adequate Sinhalese sources for the subject, and no one's managed in the two and a half weeks this has been at AfD, then it's plain that no article on the subject can be sustained. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:15, 17 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Line G (Buenos Aires Underground)

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

Stub about a subway line that probably will never be realized and there is not enough material to expand the current page. There is no real project, so it is a hypothetical line. I think it is enough to talk about it on the Buenos Aires Underground page (as already happens; This page does not add any information), at least until there are further developments. Wind of freedom (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly the "will probably never be realized" claim is OR and isn't in and of itself sufficient reason to delete an article. As for claims that there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article, I have edited a number of Buenos Aires Underground related articles at great length and seen many sources referring to Line G. Off the top of my head, information which should be added to this article includes:

- When a Chinese company offered USD 1.4 billion a few years ago to finance and construct the line in return for operating concessions. This was turned down because of concerns with the turnkey tender.

- A most recent expansion plan included Line G with plans to reroute it through the centre of the city instead of terminating at Retiro.

- This was actually one of the first planned lines back in the 1930s, but the company opted to construct Line D instead. As such, it has always remained a high priority in expansion plans and all sources indicate it will be the next line to be built after Line F.

Given all this, the best solution would be to expand and update the article. There's plenty of content to add here without cluttering the Buenos Aires Underground Article and the project has significant noteriety as an important part of the network's expansion, as would any article about an important infrastructure project for an important city. This makes the most sense as per WP:SPINOFF. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SegataSanshiro1. Expansion seems reasonable given the listed points; if not, merging to the Buenos Aires Underground page and leaving a redirect makes sense. = paul2520 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or "Weak Keep", I guess, because this AFD has been open for a while, and on not very well informed reasoning that it sounds major, it sounds like a substantial proposal, and my view that we can cover a major transportation proposal even if it is delayed and/or might not happen. The current article has just two sources, from 2011 and 2015, the latter one not being dated in the article, which I will fix now. User:SegataSanshiro1, could you possibly please list here, and/or add to the article, what other sources you have? --Doncram (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they're all in Spanish, but these refer to some of the history of the Line, the canceled Chinese financing and the current re-routed project, with EnElSubte having some pretty in-depth info:

Part 1 Part 2 - overview and history of the line up to the Chinese investment.

[47] - details on the proposed financing from China Railway Engineering Corporation.

[48] [49] [50] [51] - more on that proposed deal.

[52] - Copy of Law 670, which established the construction of lines F, G and I.

[53] [54] - reasons why CREC agreement didn't go forward.

[55] - PETERS plan, which established a new proposed route for the Line. It also has a lot of other useful information about the projected number of passengers, etc.

More information on the early history can be found easily with a bit of time, such as why Line D was built instead. At the moment, the Underground is in a process of finding a new concessionaire to begin next year, with the Paris Metro, London Underground and Berlin U-Bahn operators among the bidders. Line F is likely to move forward as a Public–private partnership, so there will be information coming out in the future on if Line G will also go forward with the new operator or not. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered that a long time ago I was working on an article for CHADOPyF in my sandbox [56] and this makes reference to the fact that the company had planned this line as Line 3 in the 1930s. There's a nice image there which could potentially be used in this article as well if it's expanded. I could probably find more sources about that part of the Line's history, though I remember there being quite a lot in the PETERS source about the history following that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article already demonstrate sufficient notability, and the ones in this discussion only reinforce that. The article could be expanded, but the current state of he article is not a reason to delete. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 14 July 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 07:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kitson

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

Clear lack of notability, failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The subject in question has not won a single election.

Furthermore, as noted by other editors in the first nomination, much of the article's text reads like a CV or political endorsement for the politician. The subject of the article has not received significant coverage that would warrant an individual article. RaviC (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability as an individual and politician. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has only just completed a prolonged period of discussion- it was nominated for deletion and resulted in a no-consensus outcome. The first nomination ran from for more that three weeks: from 31 May until it was closed on 24 June as no-consensus. At that point RaviC added the "advert" improvement template to the article. RaviC did not edit any content within the article, but within a couple of hours had opened a deletion review. Another editor promptly went through the article and made a wide range of changes, that they described as: "removed the promotional wording, added more citations and information, fixed the lede to more accurately describe her notability as written in the body of the article. Made it clear that she's lost all the elections she's run for, because it sort of sounded like she'd won some of them based on the previous wording." The deletion review attracted several responses. On 2 July the no-consensus outcome was endorsed and the deletion review closed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also discussion about whether the article should be renominated, due to a poor original nomination and some IP canvassing. SportingFlyer talk 08:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This biography has been rewritten since the previous discussion. Kitson was a prominent activist during the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and has also been prominent campaigning on LGBT issues. She has stood for various elections and been unsuccessful in these but her notability is as an activist, rather than a politician, for example Telegraph article, YWCA feature. In 2015 she ran for the female co-convener position in the Green party (against the incumbent Maggie Chapman), this was a significant challenge- the type of contest not seen before in this party. There is coverage of these various activities in articles across several newspapers and the article on Kitson is well-referenced. These reliable sources are independent of Kitson and of the Greens. She is therefore notable when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Available references and results fail to establish any notability. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not an elected politician so fails WP:NPOL but can still have an article if she passes WP:GNG. As I noted in the previous AfD, the article has a lot of sources which mention her, but there's only one source that's directly about her: [57] Everything else is trivial coverage of a leadership challenge for a minor political party. SportingFlyer talk 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep passes WP:BASIC. Passage of WP:GNG is somewhat tenuous but there is sufficient coverage to err on the side of keeping the article.--TM 17:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to be non-notable politician. My Lord (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above listed reasons. Also, being an LGBT advocate does not help make one more notable. Handoto (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOLITICIAN. The way we measure being "prominent" in Scottish independence or LGBT politics is if a subject gets significant coverage in reliable sources due to her activities in the same. If there isn't any, then she just isn't that prominent. (And that being said, opening a new AfD is an appropriate reaction to a no-consensus close.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot notable (enough). The article has been here 3 years and still virtually nothing worth mentioning has emerged Lyndaship (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clear failure of the Unelected Politician high bar. Whether we should be blocking politicians like we do is debatable, but consensus to date is clear. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political activist and unelected candidate, fails POLITICIAN fails WP:SIGCOV.

at the very least it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Imperial Union Order

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

Lack of notability. Alex Spade (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia ru:Российский Имперский Союз-Орден was deleted in 2014. A search for the Russian name brings up several post-2014 references, but they may not be enough to establish notability. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cyclowiki, a Russian-language wiki that is not a Wikipedia, has an article on the Russian Imperial Union Order at [58] Rival wikis are often associated with an abundance of drama, but I don't know anything about Cyclowiki's history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG, no WP:RS sources exist, both in English and in Russian. Most of garbage articles regarding it (especially in Russian) are WP:UGC and WP:SPS.108.30.101.121 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:25, 28 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Down's Heart Group

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

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rational--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 14 July 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. Michig (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkanmi

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single mentions and lack substance. Has won a few awards, but they appear to be minor in nature. reddogsix (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non notable, fails GNG. 2Joules (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is on Spotify, which means some international success has been achieved. Passes WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please indicate how being on Spotify is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Also being on Spotify does not indicated any international success. reddogsix (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG. I've added more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nigerian performers may be underrepresented in the English Wikipedia because of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, so I am reluctant to dismiss the awards as unimportant. It would be helpful if someone could check the Nigerian music charts for the period during which she has been active to see whether any of her singles charted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources as well as the awards and nominations are enough to show that she qualifies under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new improvement by Megalibrarygirl. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep- Meets GNG and most likely MUSICBIO due to awards and nominations. AFD is not for clean up. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously passes WP:GNG, article has also been improved substantially during AfD Mahveotm (talk) 12:20, 20 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Thornburgh

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. A lecturer only at Stanford. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per nom. In addition, fails WP:PROF. Jmertel23 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROF. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Please see the references I've found and added to the article. I also cleaned the article up. @Jmertel23 and Septrillion: you may want to take another look at the article and see what you think. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Megalibrarygirl. Closer examination shows that the topic meets WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, as to notability, per references added. Kierzek (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, paras 5 (her two solo albums were published on well-established labels, founded in 1950 (Lyrichord Discs) and 1975 (Koch International Classics are now part of Entertainment One) ); 8 (Gramophone Critics' Award) and 9 (runner up in the International Harpichord Competition). --Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 11 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Class (2016 film)

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

I don't think this film meets WP:GNG and WP:FILM. It is essentially an amateur film, a documentary of student life. There is a review on IMDb (not a reliable source) but it is provided by Danny McManus, the film's producer, editor, actor and film-maker. I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find absolutely no reliable sources for this film. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Late to the party, but non-notable and full of non-notability...how many redkikns is that? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two articles about the film from an independent source, the State Press ([59] [60]) another source, the Carolinian ([61]), a review by a political expert, Hank Nuwer [62], and an entire fucking magazine feature about the film!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 21:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above by Editor E shows that the film passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFILM. The cited sources are strictly college-related. The Carolinian is a student newspaper in UNCG; State Press is a student newspaper in ASU; the "Hazing Clearinghouse" is a personal blog written by a former Franklin professor; finally, the aforementioned "entire fucking feature" is in a college magazine. None of these sources are relevant in this context. Our article is not about a college or "college life" but about a film; perhaps it might be mentioned in articles related to student life. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's nothing inherently unreliable about student or university publications. The State Press may or may not be a bit too close, since that university is where this film was created. College Times doesn't seem to be a student-created publication, though it's intended for students and is distributed at several local campuses, including ASU. That said, I don't think the film is notable, but it's somewhat borderline. ansh 666 09:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about "nothing inherently unreliable" is one with which I fully agree. The assessment of student and university publications as being not enough for the subject at hand has been made in the context of the AfD: It should be expected that a film (whether fiction of non-fiction) with its main context being, say, scuba diving, would generate comments and interest in the scuba diving media, community, and websites. So, college media devotes space to a film on "college life." Nothing unexpected or unexceptional. To some, of course, as seen above, that may be enough for verifiable evidence of a film's notability. It's just that for me it isn't. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:FILM. The presented sources don't meet WP:NFSOURCES, because these student papers don't have a reliable publication process, and are not considered authoritative in the field of film. — Newslinger talk 02:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and The Gnome, who does a good job summing up the (lack of) reliable, secondary sources. Ifnord (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Besides anything else, as an unattributed copy-paste it is a copyright violation SpinningSpark 19:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Araya point battle

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

The article is a copy of Recapture of Bahia with slight changes. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:A10.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:56, 8 July 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle cars scam

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

Declined PROD. Reason was: "This article mentions numerous (assumedly) living people by names and makes substantial accusations about their (allegedly) criminal behavior. It is poorly sourced and the sources that are provided do not substantiate most of the content. Substantial portions of the content seem to be running afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING." \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 09:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can omit the "allegedly". "On June 5, 2003, both men were found guilty of all 46 counts - 23 each of interstate fraud and money laundering... The sentences were upheld on appeal..." The television documentary ("In 2009, a documentary on the scam as part of the series American Greed aired on CNBC.") is an in-depth reliable source and talken together with the other references is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a substantial clean up. Convictions were secured, so most of the BLP issues are resolved. The scam passes WP:N/CA with lasting significant coverage from multiple sources including Car and Driver and multiple books. The sensationalist tone of the article can be fixed through regular editing. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Scam clearly meets NCRIME - full length book [63], coverage in others [64], some lasting news mentions - e.g. [https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/gwynedd-lifeguard-gareth-vincent-hall-10980183 2016.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 8 July 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no delete votes just a comment to change the article structure and name. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Hamed

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

All of the sources are talking about her brand, and that too in a passing mention sort of way. I do not find any significant coverage in reliable sources for her to pass WP:GNG. There are blogs and unreliable websites included as well, that do nothing to add to the encyclopedic value of the article, if it had any. 2Joules (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Analeena, if the references are more about the brand than the person. There's no need to delete if the brand is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After the creation of this AfD, the nominator, 2Joules (talk · contribs · count), was blocked as a sockpuppet of FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · count). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 July 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. ansh 666 08:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Stampede

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

~~Is not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. I could not find it on any of the top ten games listed by reputable sources. 2Joules (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toucharcade review, Gamezebo review, Toucharcade followup, Gamezebo followup, Gamezebo followup 2. Not much else, so I'm going with a weak delete. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Video game mags will review any and all video games that make it out of the pipeline and then some. This is their standard way of doing things. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can bug me for !voting weak delete rather than just delete. Seems like there are better things to do though... I do disagree just about categorically with your assertion however, because some games will pull up 0 results. This one didn't. --Izno (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough significant coverage in reliable sources as shown above to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Despite a claim for borderline notability, it's not convincing. The article as a whole deserves WP:TNT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing notability criteria. The whole text is someone's personal work, typically unsourced. Much as I despise sockpuppetry, the nomination is correct. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : WP:NVIDEOGAMES's requirements seem to accomodate what the article's subject has to offer. But it's an essay and not a guideline. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opinion on recreation as a redirect. ansh 666 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Flynn

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and author. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company, which was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouBar. Created as part of a promo walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Custom Nation. I can't find anything more than passing mentions for his YouBar product, and his name itself doesn't return any notable press coverage. His book would be the best place to redirect the article to. Newslinger (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I think a straight "delete" is preferable in this case. I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable; the article on it was created by Special:Contributions/Anonymity32 who is currently indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and also fails WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Jersey Film Festival. ansh 666 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Gabriel Nigrin

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

He is a college professor that organized the New Jersey Film Festival. All the news coverage he has received has been about that festival. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE, the applicable guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - An article in The New York Times about him just pushes him past the bar, barely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT article is a local interest story about a businessman within the newspapers reading area, it is just not enough to make Nigrin notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not really a businessman, he's a college professor.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the NYT profile and the fact that he's a creator of a notable film festival. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Jersey Film Festival. The NYT piece is mostly about the festival (and the NYT covers local news - which includes NJ, and half of it is a Q&A interview (which is not independent coverage, the top half is perhaps not). There's little scope for development here with current sources and both the festival and this article are quite short stubs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New Jersey Film Festival per Icewhiz.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Jersey Film Festival per Icewhiz. Marquardtika (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Jersey Film Festival in lieu of deletion; I don't see any reason to put a stub bio of this person in that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of subject passing the independent-notability threshold of WP:NARTIST. There's the already cited NYT article plus another one, which are very strong for our purposes. Moreover, the subject is an artist himself. The article somewhat bypasses this. There's extensive coverage of the subject as an artist in, for example, an offline 1993 Star-Ledger extensive, critical presentation ("Visual Arts Center presents screenings of Nigrin films"). The text needs some serious improvement, though. -The Gnome (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to film festival. No notability to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 18 July 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. Sandstein 18:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors market index

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

Non-notable term. An exact Google search for the term has a total of 13 results (almost all Wiki mirrors). The included list is nothing more than excessive promotional listcruft based on self-published sources. GermanJoe (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The exact article title might not come up much, and one can argue about changing the name, but in my opinion there is a notable subject here. The Handbook of Alternative Assets: Making Money from Art, Rare Books, Coins and Banknotes, Forestry, Gold and Precious Metals, Stamps, Wine and Other Alternative Assets discusses many of these indices. SG100 Stamp Price Index, GB30 Rarities Index, Commonwealth Rarities 30 Index, Liv-ex 100 Index, Liv-ex Fine Wine Investable Index, and Liv-Ex Claret Chip Index all get at least a paragraph and in some cases more. Other indices, perhaps in a narrower range, are discussed in many other collectibles books. I do think, however, that the list needs a clearer inclusion criterion and could probably use some trimming after that is established. SpinningSpark 17:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is not commonly used we shouldn't have an article or list about it. Google Search is not infallible, but for a common business term there should be atleast a few reliable sources using said term. Granted the linked source briefly summarizes a few of the better-known indexes, but this information could be better used to expand the main articles about the respective notable index organizations, instead of cobbling together such an artificial list. Currently all entries are exclusively based on self-published information, and several of them plagiarize the organizations' own descriptions. Several of the overly-detailed entries (i.e. Colecty) seem barely noteworthy and show no reliable sources at all on Google. The excessive listing of every minor sub-index without substantial content or independent sources also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY or the respective list inclusion guidelines.

In short: I am not against saving some of the noteworthy content based on independent sources of course, but in its current form the article is near-impossible to salvage without a clear definition of its scope and a complete rewrite. GermanJoe (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 15 July 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. ansh 666 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ozols

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO . There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited. He is a successful lawyer who has appeared on television to give his opinion, but this alone does not make him notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Magnolia677

I'm the original author of the Alex Ozols Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ozols. I got your notification that you'd like to begin the process of deleting the article. I went to Wiki's list of American Lawyers and saw a ton of lawyers on there with similar pages, and in a lot of instances less public notability, so I'm a bit confused? I really want to contribute to Wiki and I enjoy it a lot (it's hard to contribute new information, but I'm trying every couple of days), but it's a little dissuading when a long article you worked on is scheduled for deletion. I did read your note saying that Alex Ozols is successful, but not notable, which is where I'm having the confusion. In my eyes, many people are successful and don't warrant Wiki pages, because they're not in the public realm, they're just rich or innovative people in private sectors. Conversely, Alex Ozols is in the public a lot in California and on national news media. Aside from being on TV, he's been involved some historical cases with regards to records being set and their high-profile nature. I thought my sources for Alex were objective and large, so I don't think that's the problem. Is it solely because he's not a household name? I'd love to work with you on this augment the page with your guidance so I can learn how to properly contribute full articles. This isn't a fly by night thing for me, I enjoy this, but I did a lot if citation-research and what not for the page, so I'd love to find a way to appease your (and Wiki's) preferences.

As an aside, there are a lot of articles like this one on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Lawyer) that have been up for years with warnings or requests to enhance. Why are they allowed to stay published for so long, but my more thought out and thorough contribution isn't? I really wish we could IM or something so I could understand this whole process. lol. Sorry for being so needy.

I accidentally added this to your personal talk page first. I think it was suppose to be here? Thanks!

IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a student from San Diego trying to get into wikipedia I thought I would start with some additions to a lawyer here in San Diego that everyone knows. I have never met Alex Ozols but I have heard about him and see him very frequently on local TV. I made some additions today and then saw that this page is now up for deletion. I looked at WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO and it seems that this would not fail either or those. When looking at the footnotes it says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This is an individual that has not just posted their own biography but instead has been notated in the media about cases that they personally handled. They are not cases that Alex Ozols commented on but instead are cases that he was the one handling which means the story is about his representation.

The footnotes say that: "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Again, not self published links but news outlets, magazines, and national news coverage.

In regards to the comment "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". There is a citation from the University of British Columbia, an extremely prestigious school, talking about him as a notable alumni. I also found an article from Thomas Jefferson School of Law describing his accomplishments as a notable alumni, which is a third party source acknowledging he went there, which I will add to the citations. I also found articles from Attorney Journal Magazine, featuring him and talking about his biographical background.

I respect your notations but wanted to make a quick comment about the television. This is an individual with tons of media coverage that is a very notable figure in San Diego and throughout the US. Although the guidelines say that IMDB does not fully establish notability, this is someone who does have an IMDB page and it does not even list the local news credits we see here in San Diego. The television networks that create our media each and every day look to Alex Ozols to provide comment, which is an endorsement. Media is not always in print these days, we also need to consider the media that is digital as well.

If you were doing this trying to make the page better than that is understandable but after about 60 minutes of research I can find at least 50 lawyers with pages that have a lot less notoriety than Alex Ozols.

I don't know much about wikipedia but I hope this is the right place to post my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadreamin87 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; not a lawyer and not from San Francisco, but the article as it exists is a description of a person doing the job educated for. Regardless of outcome, see no value for descriptions of individual cases. I mean, really, a dog custody case? David notMD (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Specifics about the dog case aside, Alex Ozols is on TV regularly as a commentator, contributor, and legal analyst across national TV media and all his citations are legitimate national newspapers. I perused this list of American media commentators that have passed Wiki's standards, and I see many that are equal to Alex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_political_commentators As I mentioned to the original reviewer, I also did this with American lawyers and he is equal to many of those listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_lawyers I am happy to augment my article, but I want to learn how to contribute properly so I can continue to use Wiki in a manner that adds content to the site. Just saying "he's not popular enough in my eyes" but then allowing equal pages to exist, helps no one, as it doesn't explain what is allowed and not. There cannot be a double-standard allowed on this site, like so many other sites allow. If you're allowing all of these examples to remain without concern, explain to me how Alex is different. This is an education moment for you; take it. Tell me how to make it better and I will try to edit it to your liking. Thank you!IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existence of other articles (bios of other lawyers) is not sufficient argument for not deleting an article. There are many, many existing articles in Wikipedia about people who do not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. The decision to retain or delete this article on Ozols will rest on its own merits. The nature of many of the citations (YouTube clips, interviews, IMBd...) are weak. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why he is not notable, he is a regular commentator and considered an expert by wide variety of various news outlets, and the article contains sources such as [65] that clearly contradict the nom's assertions that "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article's a quite clearly promotional piece of text, unworthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every television market in America has a lawyer that saturates the airwaves with ads and will provide comment about law issues to any station if needed. This looks like San Diego's version of Cellino & Barnes; sources, indeed, but media saturation doesn't equal meeting WP:N. We've also got WP:RESUME issues here with 'lawyer helps litigant get case dismissed' cases. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a promotional resume for an attorney, based on his own promotional efforts. The utter lack of notability is shown by the utter insignificance of the cases discussed. Personally, as advertising goes, this is pretty feeble, but that's clearly what the article sets out to do. But one of the other comments above is right--there are tens of thousand almost equally promotional articles for non-notable people, including several hundred lawyers. It will take us a while to get rid of all of them, but at the very least we shouldn't be adding to them. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blatantly promotional, possibly advertising text, per nomination, as lacking verifiable evidence of notability. And the argument "There's other similar stuff on Wikipedia" is null and void. It simply means more work for us. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 July 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aanenkilum Allenkilum

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

Per WP:NFF Jamez42 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF, no evidence filming has ever taken place. BOVINEBOY2008 13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this source indicates that filming was to begin on 7th May. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article says that filming was going to begin on that date, but given the article's date (1st May), that the film was already delayed for months until the filming date was confirmed and that only two months have passed, I don't know if other sources are needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until around mid-November to see if any more coverage has occurred. The films producers would with no doubt have started promoting by then. However, if there is no more word from the press, it would be safe to delete the article or draftify until there is enough coverage to move the article back to mainspace. -- Henry ^TALK 02:30, 12 July 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. Despite the impressive (in a bad way) amount of typing expended on this page, the WP:NOTINHERITED argument and the lack of reliable sources seems stronger. ansh 666 08:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meessen De Clercq

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to passing mentions / WP:SPIP sources. Created by a SPA with three edits and edited by a sock farm, such as Special:Contributions/Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. Notability is not inherited from the notable artists the gallery has represented. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Suject fails WP:N, never mind WP:NCORP. And socks never help the cause, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an ongoing concern exhibiting artwork in Brussels, Belgium. If we look at the article on Filip Gilissen we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Thu Van Tran we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Adam Henry (artist) we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Bostwick we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Pickering we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Maarten Vanden Eynde we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Jordi Colomer we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Benoît Maire we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Susan Collis we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Ellen Harvey we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on José María Sicilia we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Leon Vranken we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at an article named Brussels Gallery Weekend, we find one of the galleries participating in that annual event is Meessen De Clercq gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them there should be a limit to the use of the copy/paste function.

-The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable. However notability is not inherited, even if you repeat the sentence a lot.104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An art gallery virtually only receives notability from the art exhibitions shown there and from the art gallery's participation in other art-related events. This is not inheritance. Rather this is an art gallery's raison d'être. There are few other reasons that an art gallery could be reported upon in sources. Perhaps a gallery occupies a renovated disused meatpacking plant or power station and sources report on that. But there is little else that sources are likely to report on. Perhaps a reliable source will comment on the spaciousness of an art gallery or the quality of its lighting. But coverage of such factors are not the mainstay of coverage in sources of art galleries. We should want to know whether or not a schedule of art exhibitions are held at an art gallery. That should be our primary metric for determining notability for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the artists who show there do not even have to be notable. There is no argument whatsoever that galleries WP:INHERIT notability from artists. You say "As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable." It is not the notability of the artists that matters here—it is support in sources for an exhibition schedule. Reliable sources establish for us the existence of a regular exhibition schedule by publishing criticism and other commentary on art exhibitions held at art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good poke around the Interwebs, Gnews and Gbooks, and could nor find any information in RS about their history. Almost all entries in RS are name checks saying "artist X , of Messen de Clerq".104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery exists and indeed sources do take note of the gallery's existence, but they do so primarily in the form of the art exhibitions that take place there: Leon Vranken: Great plans, random ideas - at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: the individual artists they exhibit are notable, but the gallery is not.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would not matter whether the individual artists that the gallery shows are notable or not. Some of the artists are not notable. The gallery is notable if sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art. Our question is: do sources cover art exhibitions at the art gallery? An art gallery hosts the artworks of artists. If the gallery is ignored then it is non-notable. But if reliable sources critique the art exhibitions, the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're inventing policy for notability when you say they're notable if "sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art." There's a bus near my house that lots of notable people ride. it has a regular schedule of carrying notable people, in fact.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is an interview with the two principals of Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This gallery also participates in other art exhibitions elsewhere: "Gallery Meessen De Clercq explores the relation of a Dutch Golden Era painting and the gallery’s contemporary artists at Brussels Art Fair BRAFA on 23–31 January 2016." Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meessen De Clercq at Brafa Art Fair Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"By 2018, Meessen De Clercq will be able to look back on seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows and twelve publications (often first monographs on emerging artists). The gallery has participated in forty-seven international art fairs, including Art Basel, Frieze New York and Fiac." Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This last item, for example, is two sentences. There is simply no in-depth coverage of the gallery itself.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows" suggests the existence of an exhibition schedule. In and of itself this does not establish notability for the gallery. But critical notice of those exhibitions in reliable sources establishes notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are getting at, and It is admirable, but the notability fo the artists reviewed in the exhibition reviews does not establish the notability of the gallery. the reviews are, to put it plainly, abotu work that the artist insets into the gallery space, and not about the gallery space. The reviews do not go on at length abotu the history of the gallery, its walls, its operations and the aesthetic quality of its floors. They talk about the artist's intentions, the artist's work and the subjective reaction of viewers to that work. You know that. And again, notability is not inherited.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that the notability of the artists in the reviews establishes the notability of the gallery. We are concerned with the notability of the gallery, not the notability of the artists. And we are concerned with the amount of interest reviewers show for art galleries. They take notice of art galleries by writing about art exhibitions. They are not going to write about the floors, the walls, or even the history of the gallery. Why would they? The owners of the gallery choose which artists to show. In so doing they are promoting a type of art. They become known for their particular "taste" in art. Some galleries are more eclectic than others. But art comes in an extraordinarily wide range of forms, and successful galleries inevitably are tastemakers. There is a degree of frisson surrounding the most successful art galleries. The public is not interested in the physical plant of an art gallery. It is silly to expect that reliable sources are going to cover the stability of the staircases or even the lighting, which is an important factor in a good exhibition space. It is inarguably the relevance or the irrelevance of the artists that a gallery chooses to represent that either garners reviews or not. All three parts work together: reviewers, galleries, artists. They either feed into one another or they deaden one another. Contrary to your argument, we are concerned with the reviews of art shows at art galleries. The reviews of shows at art galleries establish the notability of the art gallery provided the reviews are in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're just inventing a new policy for notability. However we already have a policy for notability. All we need are ind-depth sources for the gallery, and the AFD will close as keep. Unfortunately these sources only exist for the artists who show there, and not the gallery. AND, before you port another long reply, can we just agree to disagree, and let others contribute? Someone should actually hat all this back and forth as it contributes nothing to the AfD.104.163.157.79 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on saying that we need sources for the gallery when we already have sources for the gallery. A review of an art show at a gallery is a source for the gallery. The art show is not being held on the street. The art show is not being held in a vacant lot. The art show is not being held in the artist's studio. You refuse to understand that the art show is being held in the art gallery and that the gallerist chose the artist whose work is being shown. The gallery does many other things too but it is the gallerist's taste in art that defines the art gallery. Art is not a commodity. If the gallery were exhibiting sugar there might not be much choice involved—any artist that produces sugar would be as good a choice as any other artist that produces sugar. But art is greatly varied. If 100 artists would like to have an exhibition of their work in a given gallery, the gallery might only choose one of them. But it is that choice that will make the difference between a financially successful gallery and one that loses money. You don't seem to recognize that an exhibition is not just an artist's exhibition but a gallery's exhibition too. There is just as much if not more at stake for the art gallery as there is for the artist. You are not giving credit to the gallery. A substantial review of an exhibition is a credit to the gallery. For our purposes a substantial review or critique of an art exhibition in an art gallery contributes to the notability of the gallery in addition to the notability of the artist. What would you like to hear reviewed—that the gallery has nice restrooms? An art gallery could be held in some cases on derelict property. The taste in art of the gallerist is important. An art gallery could probably be held on a garbage dump. A reviewer of that art show would evaluate the art and such a review would help to establish notability for the "Garbage Dump Art Gallery". Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Messen de Clerq has put on a show of Catalonian conceptual artist Ignasi Aballi, whose works were the subject of Madrid’s Reina Sofía retrospective in 2015-16. On view in the exhibition, titled ‘Translations’, are a number of works on paper, some of which are reminiscent of Josef Albers’s colour studies: grids of different tones marked with phrases such as ‘Peacock Blue’ and ‘Raw Sienna’. Aballi’s ‘Translations of a Japanese dictionary of colour combinations (Part II)’ (2018) is an intriguing series in which colour and language are transposed – and transposed again. One highlight is the 90-minute video Repaint Miró (2016), in which we see a restorer cover a bronze sculpture by Joan Miró in white, then re-paint it in its original colours."[66] This is a review of an art exhibition presented by Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Belgian artist Fabrice Samyn, who is briefly mentioned in our article Ariane de Rothschild Art Prize. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Jonathan Monk. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this review says about the AFD subject is "Jonathan Monk “Without” at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels". Stop posting garbage sources please, and read WP:N.104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the show is "Without" and it does not contain the work of Jonathan Monk. I stand corrected. It instead shows the work of other artists whose work somehow relates to the work of Jonathan Monk. That is the theme. I am not going to try to defend the concocted themes that art galleries come up with for shows. This is a business and they are promoters and salesmen. But this review is in "Mousse magazine", which may be a reliable source, and such a review would tend to support the notability of the gallery. I am not arguing that the notability of the artists shown in the reviewed exhibition is indicative of notability for the art gallery, but the artists in this exhibition include the following notable names: Robert Barry (artist), Alighiero Boetti, Chris Burden, Dan Graham, Sol LeWitt, Bruce Nauman, and Allen Ruppersberg. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number of Wikipedia articles mentioning "Mousse magazine" it is probably a reliable source. We have 66 articles mentioning "Mousse magazine". Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Japanese photographer Rinko Kawauchi. "The exhibition presents a collection of forty photographs portraying everyday life in the vicinity of Kumamoto, a town in southern Japan. The artwork is based on real incidents and experiences of the locals, with each photograph capturing the right moment at the right place to showcase the related stories. Kawauchi's generous work borrows phrases from the local people and embodies the Japanese aesthetic and conceptual notion of ‘the moving intimacy of things.’ In her second solo show at the gallery, the artist pushes the stereotypical boundaries of ‘good photograph’ and attempts to reveal the impermanence of the world and lifecycles along with showcasing natural phenomena as metaphors of human emotions." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you're bludgeoning the discussion now. everyone knows what you think here. Let some ohters contribute.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Meessen De Clercq is an art gallery in Brussels, one of the most important art capitals of the world. "Brussels Leads The European Contemporary Art Scene In 2017" Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The arguments you are giving are very poor. Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria. I tend to agree with you that galleries should be notable by the artists they show, but this is NOT the Wiki policy here. So please just stop. 104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly "agree" with me on a position that I did not take. I did not say that "galleries should be notable by the artists they show". I did not say anything remotely like that. You also say "Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria." Why introduce new terminology? What is a "hot capital"? And I never said that the status of the city in which a gallery was located was a notability criteria for art galleries. I was merely observing the fact that Brussels at this time is a vital center of the worldwide contemporary art market. I found that interesting and I hoped others would as well. Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are just arguing for the sake of argument. Please stop.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to 104.163.157.79—Our WP:GNG policy says the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I would add that reviews of art shows are reviews of galleries provided the art show takes place in the art gallery or is under the auspices of the art gallery but taking place on other premises. This is the work of art galleries being taken note of by reliable sources. Many other factors would apply in ultimately determining notability but they tend to be more minor factors. But your basic argument that commentary in reliable sources of the art shows mounted by art galleries does not confer notability on art galleries is incorrect. How can you possibly argue that the work of an art gallery is INHERITED from artists? Doesn't the gallery play a role in bringing the exhibition into existence? Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to 104.163.157.79—Don't you realize that your argument is wrong? We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken. Yet we are not going to have an article on an active and involved art gallery in one of the most important art cities in the world? The notability is in the reviews of the shows mounted by the art galleries. It is by design that art galleries themselves do not promote their physical plant. A museum would be written about in terms of its physical structure and the infrastructure that supports it or led to its creation. But an art gallery is a much more fly-by-night operation. There are actually "popup" art galleries. They rent a space for three months and hold an exhibition. But even those in long-term operation are not stable entities like museums. It should be noted that our coverage is presently problematic. Art gallery presently redirects to "Art museum". In significant ways these are two different types of institutions. Consequently notability requirements are different. But you seem to want a one-size-fits-all guideline for notability. It does not work. If on the other hand a museum had no sources reporting on the museum itself, you would be correct—it would likely be a candidate for deletion. I think greater sourcing requirements should be expected of museums than of art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP friend here again, my IP reset. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Time to put a sock in it and have the good grace to allow others to contribute. 198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP friend. You have the wrong idea about WP:INHERIT concerning this article and unfortunately you aren't willing to discuss that. You seem to think that a review of an art show is solely a review of artwork and of an artist. But an art exhibition is the culmination of many steps that an art gallery is instrumental in bringing about. These steps are too numerous to list but the very existence of an art gallery is a prerequisite to an art show. Reliable sources write reviews of artwork and artists but this should be understood as evidence of a gallery's notability. You do not have to dogmatically stick to a policy that is inapplicable in a given instance. Though a source is addressing an art show at an art gallery, such a source is tending to confer notability on an art gallery. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but you are overtaking the whole AfD process! And using unacceptable arguments to boot, such as WP:OSE ("We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken," etc). The IP contributor makes a valid point: Notability is not inherited. If Edith Piaf stayed in the Grand Hôtel de Clermon, this by itself does not make the hotel notable. Independent notability requires reliable sources testifying to the subject's own, independent notability.

You disagree, obviously. It's understood. No need to bludgeon the discussion and fill up space with more and more links about shows, artists, and so on. It's time to allow others to contribute here. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the Notability is not inherited policy—where it is applicable. But it is not applicable here. A source which reviews an art show at an art gallery tends to provide support for the notability of the art gallery hosting that show. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. But this is our point of contention. I would appreciate having a civil discussion in which you address that point instead of dismissing it out of hand. WP:INHERIT is generally applicable. It is not applicable here and we are not required to degrade the encyclopedia in order to hew to the letter of policy. And you should not be telling me not to "fill up space with more and more links about shows" because those links to shows tell us that this is an active art gallery that is involved in the contemporary art world in a city with a very vital art scene. I welcome constructive dialogue, The Gnome. Bear in mind that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about notability anymore. It's about you intentionally bludgeoning and ruining the Afd process, after multiple requests to step back.198.58.156.206 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I've given up all hope of you engaging in conversation. All you are doing is complaining. You have one and only one argument. It is simplistic and it is incorrect. That argument is that notability is not inherited, enshrined in our policy of WP:INHERIT. Just because an art gallery is not mentioned (actually it always is mentioned, but only minimally) in a review of an exhibition, that is not an indication that the source is not referencing the gallery. It need not be referenced directly, in order to be referenced. If you want to engage in this deletion discussion you can address that point. We have policies and guidelines for everything. A great one here that you should be citing is WP:SATISFY. Why stop at WP:BLUDGEON? I'm not opposed to our policies and guidelines but they can be misused. Reviews of exhibitions logically reference art galleries even if they don't literally reference art galleries. That is my argument. That is the point that I am making. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone reading this understood your point the first time you replied with the repeating sentences. At this point it would be very CIVIL of you to put a sock in it and let others reply. You have, sadly, bludgeoned your view mercilessly here. Grow up and let others have a say. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your main point as soon as you made it, Bus stop. And accepted it as legitimate, though erroneous IMVHO. The avalanche of sources only support the legitimacy of your point, i.e. it exists and it's out there. Nothing is added by piling up more links and text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "erroneous" then you should be able to articulate why it is erroneous. That is what is conspicuously missing from your input into the above discussion, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please make your points citing WP:PAG where possible and move on. This discussion is already deep into WP:TLDR territory. @ Bus stop Your WP:Bludgeoning in this discussion has been extremely discourteous, bordering on disruptive. Please stop.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem—as you probably know there isn't specific language in WP:PAG pertaining to the notability of art galleries (or at least none that I'm aware of) therefore the adaptation of existing PAG may be called for. I think that prompts the unusual amount of discussion seen above and the high volume of input from me. Bus stop (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The nomination (and supporting delete) are flawed because galleries do indeed gain notability from the artists they exhibit - just as football player gain notability from the teams they play on. Galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artworks, but the most important can have a great effect on the local art scene or even the global art world. This one has exhibited enough notable artists to narrowly make the cut imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artwork is like saying Warren Buffett is just a stock-picker. This is especially true of cutting edge, contemporary artwork, which is another point I neglected to mention, applicable to Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the creator of the article has a username, User:Absens2008 that is taken from the title and year of first exhibition of the gallery. If there is undisclosed paid editing, I'd like to see any conflict of interest resolved before closing this AfD. I have the impression that the gallery was involved in creating an article about itself. The article was previously deleted as unambiguous advertising nominated for G11 again after recreation, but that speedy was declined then declined by blocked sockpuppet. Another contributor who appears to have a CoI is User:Anthropocene2015 See for example [67] Vexations (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gallery seems notable...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources that would make it possible to write a factual, neutral article are simply not there. The online ones we have are mostly useless:

[68]is the gallery itself, and cannot be used to establish notability

[69] is an interview with the owners

[70] is an interview with the owners

[71] is a dead link

[72] is a list of participating galleries in the Frieze art fair. It's worth noting that German Wikipedia considers galleries participating in such art fairs for a number of years notable. But other than Meessen De Clercq particpated in The 2012 edition of the Frieze Art Fair, it doesn't tell us anything.

[73] is a mention, and again it doesn't really tell us anything other than Ignasi Aballí has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.

[74] is a commercial gallery that mentions thtaone of their artists has aso exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. The only statement that we can get from that would be, again, Susan Collins has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.

[75] is a listing, not editorial content. This kind of material is submitted by the gallery.

[76] is a little better; it has byline, Heini Lehtinen, a contributor. It can't be a review though, since it's dated Jan 20, 2016 and the exhibition it describes took place from 23–31 January 2016. An actual review, albeit very brief is in [77].

[78] "Starting November 8th, the gallery Meessen De Clercq is pleased to present...". That's a press release.

Still looking into the other sources that are listed, but not linked that were added by the IP address 91.183.239.198 that only ever contributed to articles about or related to the subject and (surprise?) geolocates to Brussels. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMVHO, the succinct and trenchant forensics by Vexations above carry the day. Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but WP is not a gallery of indiscriminate exhibits. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:TPYES I find "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I have The Gnome commenting "Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but..." and "Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but..." In my opinion The Gnome should confine their comments to content and not speculate about the motivations of other editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will. No need to invoke policy; it's a matter of common courtesy. I apologize. I tried to express sympathy but failed. The rest of my remarks (i.e. comparative assessment of sources) remain as they are. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bus Stop's information and adequate defense for the notability of this gallery. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. However, it is NOT notable in Wikpedia's very special sense of notable: having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have spent hours trying to fix the sources listed, and have had nothing but difficulties. The list of sources is impossible: The newspapers cited, La Libre Belgique and Le Soir both have extensive archives, and one would expect to find the articles there. Even checking ALL the articles ever published by the authors cited yielded nothing usable. I managed to dig up one source that I can't cite because it uses a blacklisted link, Collect, that quotes the owners on why they participated in the BRAFA art fair. There is a possibility that an article Brusselse topgaleries (deel 5): Galerie Meessen De Clercq by Patrick Auwelaert provides the kind of analysis that would support an article, but I have no access to that source. The article is part of a series that also covers Galerie Jan Mot (part 10), Galerie Rodolphe Janssen (part 9), Galerie Nathalie Obadia (part 8), ( Almine Rech Gallery (part 7), Galerie Greta Meert (part 6), Galerie Daniel Templon (part 4), Galerie Xavier Hufkens (part 3), Albert Baronian (part 2) and Roberto Polo Gallery (part 1). To see who these galleries represent, take a look at User:Vexations/lists/Galleries, it ought to give some idea about their significance. Personally, I wish it wasn't so difficult to source articles like this. I would like to see articles on art galleries, and I think that linking artists to galleries and vice versa helps to build the web, rather than create walled gardens. But ignoring the dearth of sources is not the solution.

Then there is the involvement of the gallery itself in the creation of the article and the creation of the articles on the artists that it represents. The editors Anthropocene2015 and Absens2008 are sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors and their creations might have been eligible for deletion under G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, had they been caught in a timely manner. Both should have been blocked. An AfD is no place to punish a subject for their efforts to promote themselves, but it is appropriate to make one thing very clear: Unless you provide the sources so that the content can be verified and summarize their content from a neutral POV and have the article scrupulously reviewed for verifiability and neutrality (at AfC), there can be no article. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 👏👏👏 Brava, @Vexations—spot on and kudos for putting in the labor. Can I try to help with the sources you mentioned? Is this Collect? If you could clarify re: the La Libre Belgique and Le Soir refs, by "nothing usable" did you mean that the content was meager or that you weren't able to find some of the citations? I'll look into getting the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen as it seems @Absens2008 isn't returning with a copy. czar 23:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Collect referred to here is a Belgian magazine. Their website is http://www.collectaaa.be. The issue is Hiver 2015 Nº 459. I found it through a google cache of the BRAFA website, but couldn't post that here because that google URL is blacklisted. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoh9nr84fcAhVCbKwKHR-cAWsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brafa.art%2Fmedia%2FAntiquesFairBeMedia%2FPressClips%2F2016-2-23-14-24-44_BE%2520-%25202015.12-2016.01%2520-%2520COLLECT%2520AAA%2520(fr).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QBuVvxWXEDHG7iexUDFCF. I'm not sure how to make that URL work. 12:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice—appears to work without the Google cache URL elements (the Google cache isn't a permanent link), but questionable whether BRAFA holds the rights to host this excerpt, no? & could you clarify re: La Libre Belgique and Le Soir? czar 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For La Libre Belgique for example, the article cites Lorent, Claude (2011-10-06). "Tout, de la cave au grenier". La Libre Belgique. So I looked at all the articles by Claude Lorent that La Libre Belgique has in it's archives http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?artefactFilter=article%2Cfolder%2Cgallery%2Cvideo&section=&subsection=&dateFilter=allDates&to=2018-07-05&from=2001-01-01&sort=&query=Claude+Lorent but nothing resembles the title, "Tout, de la cave au grenier", nor do they have any article published by him for the given date, 2011-10-06. I also queried the archive for the search term "Meessen De Clercq", but that yielded nothing http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?query=%22Meessen+de+Clerq%22. I tried the same type of search for matching either an author/date or article title (Legrand, Dominique. "Galeriste, sans chloroforme".) and simply looking for articles about the subject at Le Soir, which gives http://www.lesoir.be/archives/recherche?word=%22Meessen%20de%20Clercq%22&sort=date%20desc&datefilter=lastyear&form_build_id=form-kLAE3Up-EEgL1FZOQsqAdX67H4jFaU4bfcsIcNUVDoI&form_id=dpidamwidgets_damsimplesearch_content_type_search_form I referred to that as "nothing usable". Vexations (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Yes, that's unfortunate. Sometimes newspapers don't put their full archives online, but without volume/issue metadata, there's no reasonable way to follow up on this... if the listed citations were ever even in print? Ulrich's does not list the two papers as being indexed in online databases, so no help there either: WYSIWYG. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. czar 09:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations,

sent the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen. It looks solid, but I defer to a native speaker. czar 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am willing to accept the argument that coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer. I would also remind everyone that there are many exceptions to GNG in areas where GNG doesn't work well, such as species of living things, high schools and high-performance athletes. We may need another exception for art dealers analogous to "played at least one game in the major leagues", which means that we will have to define "major league" art dealers in the same way that we have a list of fully professional association football leagues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, Vexations' first sentence summarized my keep argument: The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. In my opinion, and as discussed by Eastmain above, there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG, and I believe this subject is one. The article needs cleanup and improvement, but is notable enough to remain. --HunterM267 ^talk 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat disconcerting that a statement from an anonymous nobody on the internet (me) should be used to decide the notability of a subject. I can't just go and write the article based on my personal knowledge and experience, can I? Follow the sources. If they exist, show us where they are. (Note: Auwelaert 2014 goes a long way towards the kind of coverage that would satisfy the GNG) Vexations (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: Thank you for your response - I agree with your comments, and apologize for the lack of depth of my initial statement. Prior to making my comment, I reviewed the references and their links on the article - however, after a more thorough review of the sources listed, I find that the majority of them are primarily trivial mentions of the gallery as a venue for artists (such as here and here). Given this, along with my original statement above, I find that I could largely see the arguments made for both delete and keep. In my review of AfDs, I prefer to prioritize what the WP:RS say, in accordance with our WP:PAG. I cannot deny that this subject, as important to the international art world as it may be, lacks the verifiable references defined in the WP:GNG. For that reason, I cannot, in good conscious, maintain a keep vote, and I have struck my previous statement. However, I also do understand the rationale presented by Eastmain above (re: that the coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer), but lack the knowledge of the details of art galleries to be able to properly formulate an opinion. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I don't believe that there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG is a valid argument in a deletion discussion. The sources either exist or they don't. The entity in question is a private, for-profit company and we need to be mindful of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations, what do you think of the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen article? czar 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I think it goes some way towards establishing notability. It is one of the few sources that is actually about the gallery. It was written in 2014, six years after the gallery was founded, so it discusses a relatively "young" gallery. It is mostly an interview, and contains no independent analysis by the author. I'm not quite sure what it could be used for. It makes very few factual statements. It cites some very broad remarks by the owners about who they like to work with, like "The personality of the artist is important. It has to click. It has to be someone who believes in his future." I have no idea how you would turn such quotes into something encyclopedic. The problem, I think, is that at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style, tried to function as a platform (publisher, agent) more than a pure sales organization, and didn't really have much of a history. Vexations (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations—you say "at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style". I don't know how you know this. What "movement or style" is it linked to now? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could have phrased hat better. I meant to say that there is nothing in the text of the article by Auwelaert that gives its readers any indication about what kind of work the gallery shows. Their programming is not based on any specific criteria. So you couldn't say, for example, that the gallery specializes in works by artists who have something concrete in common, like Greta Meert, who specializes in minimal and conceptual art, other than "conceptual artists who work with various media". In fact, the only artist from their roster who gets a mention is Fabrice Samyn (Leon Vranken and Ellen Harvey get a photo credit).

Comment I think this effort to delete galleries under a literal interpretation of NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion here is a perfect example of this. Hunting for articles or reviews that talk about the gallery, but not any of the artists, so as to argue that there is coverage about the gallery itself exemplifies the failure of NCORP to handle this situation. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had. As Vexations has said, "The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world" and yet by the literalist interpretation of NCORP it seems like it will be deleted. This is a failure of the guidelines. --Theredproject (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? No one is actually arguing NCORP, nevertheless literally. The agreement is that there aren't enough reliable, secondary source coverage to do justice to the topic. That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines. czar 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Czar—you say "That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines." WP guidelines do not say that reviews of art exhibitions at art galleries do not lend support to notability of art galleries. Arts journalism does not generally review works of art in for instance artists' studios, or even works displayed on the street. It is the public display of art in the institutions called art galleries that prompts the arts journalism to which you refer. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications also write about successful business partnerships and the lives of gallerists, and at the very least they review the gallery's shows. This is the type of content you'd need for a decent, authoritative article about a gallery. It follows that we simply cannot write an article that does justice to the topic if the only sources with editorial distance cover the topic in passing. The idea of exempting art gallery articles from sourcing requirements is off-topic (as Theredproject said above) but to the point that other editors are unhappy with the outcome of this AfD, I suggest resolving the core issue elaborated by Vexations above: insufficient sourcing to write an authoritative encyclopedia article, which is not a fault of the guidelines. czar 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A couple of good profiles in respectable publications would solve the notability issue. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" in a unique way is not a valid argument here. If we adopt that as policy then movie theaters who show films by notable directors, bookstores that have author talks, bars and clubs that present notable musicians and perhaps even restaurants who have have hired notable chefs will all be eligible. (router reset, I'm the original delete vote, 104.163.157.79). 96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to address the presence of journalistic reviews of art exhibitions. It is not the presence of notable artists or notable artwork that confers notability on art galleries. It is the presence of journalistic reviews of exhibitions that can confer notability on three entities—artists, artwork, and art galleries. The art exhibition is being held on the premises of the art gallery. The gallery choose both the artist and the art. The gallery scheduled and arranged all aspects of the exhibition. Journalists do not write reviews of artwork in artists' studios. Journalists review exhibitions at art galleries. Some galleries of course have a reputation for stimulating or thought-provoking shows. By the way, don't put within quotation marks that "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" because you are not quoting anyone as no one said that. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, I'm sympathetic to your point that some galleries are notable in the conventional sense, but what would an article look like that was solely based on exhibition reviews? What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review? https://www.flashartonline.com/2012/03/fabrice-samyn-review-6-03-2012/ 11:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Vexations—we need not write the article from that review or from any other review but reviews confer notability on art galleries—as well as on artists and artwork. At WP:NNC we find "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." At WP:ARTN we find "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You are conflating two different things when you say "What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review?" That review along with others tends to confer notability on the art gallery, as well as on the artist and the artworks under review in that journalistic piece. We already have an article. The material may or may not derive from reviews of art exhibitions held at the gallery. It is my hope that the material already in the article—whether it comes from reviews of exhibitions or other sources—is based on acceptable-quality sources. But I would argue that a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery. In practice what this can mean for articles on art galleries is a selective list of artist's names and the titles of artworks, with an aim towards providing some commentary, if available. A plus would be the inclusion of images of artworks reliably-sourced to have been exhibited at that gallery. Images convey to the reader a general idea of the kind of art the gallery specializes in. In summation, there are two separate questions: what should the content be? and is the gallery notable? We can "Keep" this article because it already has some content, and notability is established by the many reviews of art exhibitions held there. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, I'm trying my best to see things from your POV, but if, as you say a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery, then how are you going to write an acceptable article? Are you proposing that we can have articles about subjects whose notability is derived separately, from sources like the review in flash art, and then get the content of the article from other sources that are not themselves independent, reliable, secondary sources? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations—don't we have an article already and aren't we considering deleting it? I don't know what you mean by "how are you going to write an acceptable article?" Is the article unacceptable now? "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." In your previous post you mentioned this review. That review tends to confer notability on three entities—the artist, the artworks mentioned, and the gallery. I'm really not sure what problem you are perceiving. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have no decent sources for this article at all, as I pointed out above. Vexations (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem here is how Bus stop is bludgeoning the discussion and thereby preventing other voices.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the r references are essentially mere listing s and indiental mentions and self-published sources. They've been analyzed adequately above. It's true that it is quite difficult to show a gallery notable -- what people write about is the artists. I think it would take spedcific truly 3rdparty sources writing about the school of art or the art scene in the city and devoting considerable discussion to the gallery itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SMART criteria. Sandstein 07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PURE goal criteria

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

Non-notable neologism pushed by various marketing consultants on their blogs and consultancy websites. A Google search revealed no promising hits, but due to the ambiguous term it is extremely difficult to search for it. The given source fails WP:RS. GermanJoe (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per WP:NEO, there are a couple of in-field references (how-to articles, rather than more academic or suitable industry sources), it hasn't made it (as far as i can tell) to mainstream news, books or journals. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - A changed !vote via Sam's sources. I did amend my search terms with some extra stuff but clearly adding SMART was the key bit. I would strongly suggest the following of his sources (^[1]). None of the others give it both clearly (apologies) and in detail, mainly due to lack of access, rather than me feeling they don't have it. That said just with what can be accessed gives a fairly clear impression so I'm happy for it to be a keep. If I'm feeling more energetic today I'll try to add some of these to the article, if no-one beats me to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I realise I'm somewhat pinging around here, which no doubt is not conducive to the discussion, so apologies. That said, I think the merge as suggested by talk is probably the best solution. I'm not sure whether enough content exists to warrant an extension to the article's name, but that can be decided externally to the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

~~Keep~~. Try the above alt. searches that combine CLEAR and PURE with the older SMART criteria. If we just look at Google Books hits there are more than ennough to satisfy GNG.^[2]^[3]^[1]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] Google Scholar is giving as well.^[9]^[10]^[11] That last paper by Day and Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe and Nosebagbear. Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) --Amended below. Sam Sailor 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Dembkowski, S. (2006). The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching. Thorogood. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-85418-657-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. goal. setting. Introduction. Without clear goals, executive coaching relationships can become just a forum for rambling ... our experience those that have proven to be most useful are those based on the acronyms of SMART, PURE and CLEAR.
^ Bianco-Mathis, V.E.; Nabors, L.K.; Roman, C.H. (2002). Leading From the Inside Out: A Coaching Model. SAGE Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7619-2392-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. The first step is to translate each goal into objectives. Whitmore (1996, pp. 55-56) stressed that good objectives need to be not only SMART, but also PURE and CLEAR: • SMART: Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-phased • PURE: ...
^ Salazar, M.K. (2006). Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing. Elsevier Saunders. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-4160-2374-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal-setting must be realistic, yet challenging; enthusiastic, yet disciplined. 2. Qualities of a good goal are: S.M.A.R.T., P.U.R.E AND C.L.E.A.R. (Box 7-1). End goals serve as the final objective to be achieved. 1. These goals are in alignment ...
^ Wood, A. (2007). A Comprehensive Library Staff Training Programme in the Information Age. Chandos Information Professional Series. Elsevier Science. p. 355. ISBN 978-1-78063-106-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. ... CLEAR (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally Sound, Agreed, Recorded), 110, 193 PURE (Positively Stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical), 110, 193 SMART (Specific/Stretching, Measurable, Achievable/Agreed, Realistic, Timebound), ...
^ Niermeyer, R. (2008). Teams führen. Kienbaum bei Haufe (in German). Haufe Verlag GmbH & Company KG. p. 67. ISBN 978-3-448-09043-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Formulieren Sie Ziele, die motivieren Wer seine Ziele mit der SMART-PURE-CLEAR-Methode formuliert, verhindert die häufigsten Fehler, die bei der Zielvereinbarung vorkommen: SMART PURE CLEAR • Ziele werden zu hoch oder zu ...
^ Frank Messina, E.D. (2011). Two-And-A-Half Minutes To “Effective”: Daily Thoughts for Improving Your Effectiveness in the Areas of Communications, Coaching, and Delegation. Xlibris US. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-4568-7930-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. believe creates a good chance of our reaching that end goal. ... goal setting, Whitmore reminds us of the need for clarity in setting goals. ... That mnemonic is, S.M.A.R.T. Goals (Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time phased). He also refers to P.U.R.E. Goals (Positively stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical) and C.L.E.A.R. Goals (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally sound, Appropriate, and ...
^ McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring for Business. SAGE Publications. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-4739-0432-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART, e.g., EXACT (Wilson 2007), OPUS (Stoltzfus 2008), PURE (Whitmore 2009) and CLEAR (Whitmore 2009). Wilson describes EXACT as a goal ...
^ de Jong, E. (2014). Goal Setting for Success. Personal Development for Beginners. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-4954-4884-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal setting was originally only done in business, but in recent years, this technique has gained popularity as a tool to help ... use SMART, PURE & CLEAR, with each letter representing specific criteria that needs to be met when setting a goal.
^ "The Seven Steps of Effective Executive Coaching". ProQuest. 2 July 2018. Retrieved 2 July 2018.
^ "A sustainable management model based on business excellence as applied to mining companies". Archivo Digital UPM. 5 July 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2018.
^ Day, Trevor; Tosey, Paul (2011). "Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting". Curriculum Journal. 22 (4). Informa UK Limited: 515–534. doi:10.1080/09585176.2011.627213. ISSN 0958-5176. … Goal setting and action planning using NLP's well-formed outcomes framework can be … Churches and Terry (2007) recommend employing an NLP- influenced SMART framework (specific, with … with the addition of further NLP elements using the mnemonic PURE (the outcome is …

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) - I have checked the listed links, and almost all of them provide only passing mentions or quotes of Whitmore's publication about PURE as an additional set of goals, but do not elaborate on the concept in significant detail. Such numerous mentions are a good argument against WP:NOTNEO, agreed. But without in-depth analysis of the term and its underlying concept these sources still fail to establish notability for a stand-alone article. The term exists and is used by some authors, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2) - would it be appropriate to simply merge/redirect a brief mention of this term into SMART criteria? All three terms seem very closely connected, both in research and usage as your list of sources clearly indicates. The articles already cross-link each other with significant overlap. Just a random suggestion, but maybe that would be a viable solution to preserve the information without the need for perfect "notability". GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (cross-posted to WP:Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria): If this article is kept, it may be appropriate to create a navigation template for articles on goal-criteria mnemonics analogous to Template:Medical mnemonics. See also: List of medical mnemonics. How many of these goal-criteria mnemonics are there? I wonder if Yaris678, who is the top editor of SMART criteria, would care to opine on this deletion discussion? Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text about a non-notable training-mnemonic of a neologism. I'll not express any value opinions on the merits of such angles in coaching because the subjects' merits are irrelevant to AfDs. If wider notability were there, one could make a case for this kamikaze account-created text to be kept.

On Sam Sailor's sources, aka Is Anybody Clicking:

The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching: passing mentions of one mnemonic among mnemonics
Leading From the Inside Out: one or two passing mentions.
Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing has no online text to check out
The index of Comprehensive Library shows only two mentions. Evidently, it's all about something else.
The German-language version of the training manual, which, perversely, keeps the English acronym and its English words for its German users. Not too serious as a source, I'd say.
Two and a Half Minutes has one single mention of the mnemonic, bundled with a bunch of others.
Or take Coaching and Mentoring for Business : "To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART", our manual says and goes "e.g. PURE, OPUS, EXACT."

This is all very lame. At best, and with generosity, one could suggest a Merge of whatever can be salvaged into "John Whitmore (racing driver)". And since one could so do I. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Are you proposing to delete or to merge and redirect? Biogeographist (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject entirely lacks independent notability, despite the noble effort (and extensive citations) to support it. It should/could be Deleted, per policy. But if a Merge to the article about those mnemonics' main parent is preferred by the AfD participants, as an alternative, I would not object, as it happens. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect both this article and the article on CLEAR goal criteria (see WP:Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria) into ~~a new section of Goal setting titled, e.g., "Criteria" or~~ SMART criteria § Additional criteria. As The Gnome noted above, the available sources are not good enough to support separate articles about these goal-criteria mnemonics. Furthermore, treating all goal-criteria mnemonics in one section of Goal setting will allow for more WP:NPOV treatment of goal criteria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the suggested redirect target to SMART criteria § Additional criteria per Yaris678's suggestion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A merge into the related SMART criteria sounds like a fine idea for preserving the material. Sam Sailor 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SMART criteria. Sandstein 07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR goal criteria

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

Non-notable neologism pushed by various marketing consultants on their blogs and consultancy websites. A Google search revealed no promising hits, but due to the ambiguous term it is extremely difficult to search for it. Both given sources fail WP:RS. GermanJoe (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

~~Keep~~. Try the above alt. searches that combine CLEAR and PURE with the older SMART criteria. If we just look at Google Books hits there are more than ennough to satisfy GNG.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] Google Scholar is giving as well.^[9]^[10]^[11] That last paper by Day and Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping GermanJoe. Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) --Amended below. Sam Sailor 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bianco-Mathis, V.E.; Nabors, L.K.; Roman, C.H. (2002). Leading From the Inside Out: A Coaching Model. SAGE Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7619-2392-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. The first step is to translate each goal into objectives. Whitmore (1996, pp. 55-56) stressed that good objectives need to be not only SMART, but also PURE and CLEAR: • SMART: Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-phased • PURE: ...
^ Salazar, M.K. (2006). Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing. Elsevier Saunders. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-4160-2374-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal-setting must be realistic, yet challenging; enthusiastic, yet disciplined. 2. Qualities of a good goal are: S.M.A.R.T., P.U.R.E AND C.L.E.A.R. (Box 7-1). End goals serve as the final objective to be achieved. 1. These goals are in alignment ...
^ Dembkowski, S. (2006). The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching. Thorogood. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-85418-657-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. goal. setting. Introduction. Without clear goals, executive coaching relationships can become just a forum for rambling ... our experience those that have proven to be most useful are those based on the acronyms of SMART, PURE and CLEAR.
^ Wood, A. (2007). A Comprehensive Library Staff Training Programme in the Information Age. Chandos Information Professional Series. Elsevier Science. p. 355. ISBN 978-1-78063-106-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. ... CLEAR (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally Sound, Agreed, Recorded), 110, 193 PURE (Positively Stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical), 110, 193 SMART (Specific/Stretching, Measurable, Achievable/Agreed, Realistic, Timebound), ...
^ Niermeyer, R. (2008). Teams führen. Kienbaum bei Haufe (in German). Haufe Verlag GmbH & Company KG. p. 67. ISBN 978-3-448-09043-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Formulieren Sie Ziele, die motivieren Wer seine Ziele mit der SMART-PURE-CLEAR-Methode formuliert, verhindert die häufigsten Fehler, die bei der Zielvereinbarung vorkommen: SMART PURE CLEAR • Ziele werden zu hoch oder zu ...
^ Frank Messina, E.D. (2011). Two-And-A-Half Minutes To “Effective”: Daily Thoughts for Improving Your Effectiveness in the Areas of Communications, Coaching, and Delegation. Xlibris US. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-4568-7930-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. believe creates a good chance of our reaching that end goal. ... goal setting, Whitmore reminds us of the need for clarity in setting goals. ... That mnemonic is, S.M.A.R.T. Goals (Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time phased). He also refers to P.U.R.E. Goals (Positively stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical) and C.L.E.A.R. Goals (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally sound, Appropriate, and ...
^ McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring for Business. SAGE Publications. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-4739-0432-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART, e.g., EXACT (Wilson 2007), OPUS (Stoltzfus 2008), PURE (Whitmore 2009) and CLEAR (Whitmore 2009). Wilson describes EXACT as a goal ...
^ de Jong, E. (2014). Goal Setting for Success. Personal Development for Beginners. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-4954-4884-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal setting was originally only done in business, but in recent years, this technique has gained popularity as a tool to help ... use SMART, PURE & CLEAR, with each letter representing specific criteria that needs to be met when setting a goal.
^ "The Seven Steps of Effective Executive Coaching". ProQuest. 2 July 2018. Retrieved 2 July 2018.
^ "A sustainable management model based on business excellence as applied to mining companies". Archivo Digital UPM. 5 July 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2018.
^ Day, Trevor; Tosey, Paul (2011). "Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting". Curriculum Journal. 22 (4). Informa UK Limited: 515–534. doi:10.1080/09585176.2011.627213. ISSN 0958-5176. … Goal setting and action planning using NLP's well-formed outcomes framework can be … Churches and Terry (2007) recommend employing an NLP- influenced SMART framework (specific, with … with the addition of further NLP elements using the mnemonic PURE (the outcome is …

Comment : I'm not impressed by the above list. For example, this cited source is from the Goal Setting for Success book that only mentions the subject once, and disparagingly too. Or take this book where the subject is mentioned only twice, per its index. The rest seem typical jargon-infested manuals that coach consultants. These are the sources that shall keep this SPAish-created text up? -The Gnome (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) - first of all many thanks @Sam Sailor: for the additional hits. Still lots of false positives, but your search parameters are vastly better nonetheless. However, I have checked the listed links, and almost all of them provide only passing mentions or quotes of Whitmore's publication about CLEAR as an additional set of goals, but do not elaborate on the concept in significant detail. Such numerous mentions are a good argument against WP:NOTNEO, agreed. But without in-depth analysis of the term and its underlying concept these sources still fail to establish notability for a stand-alone article. The term exists and is used by some authors, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). For the sake of efficiency, I won't add a similar comment at the parallel Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria just yet, but will wait until the discussion here is over. GermanJoe (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (2) - would it be appropriate to simply merge/redirect a brief mention of this term into SMART criteria? All three terms seem very closely connected, both in research and usage as your list of sources clearly indicates. The articles already cross-link each other with significant overlap. Just a random suggestion, but maybe that would be a viable solution to preserve the information without the need for perfect "notability". GermanJoe (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (cross-posted to WP:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria): If this article is kept, it may be appropriate to create a navigation template for articles on goal-criteria mnemonics analogous to Template:Medical mnemonics. See also: List of medical mnemonics. How many of these goal-criteria mnemonics are there? I wonder if Yaris678, who is the top editor of SMART criteria, would care to opine on this deletion discussion? Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this corporate-training neologism that has evidently failed to catch on widely. The sources quoted at length above do nothing to change the lack of verifiable evidence of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both this article and the article on PURE goal criteria (see WP:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria) into ~~a new section of Goal setting titled, e.g., "Criteria" or~~ SMART criteria § Additional criteria. As The Gnome noted above, the available sources are not good enough to support separate articles about these goal-criteria mnemonics. Furthermore, treating all goal-criteria mnemonics in one section of Goal setting will allow for more WP:NPOV treatment of goal criteria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the suggested redirect target to SMART criteria § Additional criteria per Yaris678's suggestion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect both this article and the article on PURE goal criteria into a new section of SMART criteria. I would be OK with Biogeographist's suggestion. However, the content of the PURE and CLEAR articles is more of a similar style to the SMART article. That article already has a section on "additional criteria"; I would add a section called something like "alternative criteria". Yaris678 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A merge into the related SMART criteria sounds like a fine idea for preserving the material. Sam Sailor 21:43, 23 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Catholic Church Buttranwali, Gujranwala

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

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable parish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 15 July 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. Enigma^msg 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Parish, Azam Basti

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

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Störm: is there any sort of a notability guideline which applies specifically to religious buildings? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- due to its social importance to Pakistani Christians which is enough for it to reach notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- The article certainly needs improvement, but the implication appears to be that this is a mother church from which a number of others ("mass centres") have been planted. Also the murder of Bhatti outside makes him potentially a martyr, so that this article may supply the lack of an article on him. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline. There used to be something at WP:CHURCH, but it has never been accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:GNG for the news coverage it has attracted Atlantic306 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 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 Exo-CBX. Can be retargeted to Magic (Exo-CBX album) if someone thinks that's more appropriate (I'm not sure what the conventions on this kind of thing are). Reliably sourced content can be merged from page history. ansh 666 08:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Circus

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

PROD removed without valid reason. Editor seems to think that ticket sales will help this meet WP:NTOUR, but they are mistaken: what is required is significant discussion of the tour as a tour. There is no such discussion--and there really is no sourcing, since all the references are to the official website. Not surprising since this is a small tour. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Exo-CBX. The tour itself is not notable, with no apparent third party references after a Google check. The information contained may improve the band’s article, particularly the “tours” section. iComputer SaysNo 23:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG; significant RS coverage not found. I don't see any content / sources worth merging, and the tour appears to be too insignificant for the name to have become a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic (Exo-CBX album). This is clearly a notable tour, Japanese-language sources have covered this arena tour. MusicVoice talks about one show quite a bit, Kstyle gives a figure for the audience it drew (80,000). Additional sources: [79] [80]. But there doesn't seem to be enough information to merit its own separate article. ℯ xplicit 01:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Magic (Exo-CBX album) per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for subject failing WP:NTOUR. This pass valid for no place. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 17 July 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 defaulting to keep. Despite numbers, I'm not comfortable enough with the strength of arguments on either side to close as straight keep. It is worth noting that comments in the last relist block mention that there could be more sources out there that are harder to find - not English or not online - which could push it firmly onto the keep side, but without them, it's hard to know for sure. ansh 666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Tomaszewski

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

Not even close to passing GNG or NAUTHOR. Sources added after BLPPROD are self authored. BEFORE mainly shows clones of book jackets at Amazon and the like. No substantial coverage of the subject or her works. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. She has a great personal story, but the reliable source coverage just isn't there. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio please look at the sources again; I’m afraid you looked at them too briefly since your comment is contrary whats there. The sources are just fine.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blurb in a non-RS she will be speaking at an event, a probably self authored profile (one of thousands) at KresySiberia (probably not a RS, but does not matter), book jakcets she wrote or translated, and a few opeds she penned over the years in a local paper... None of the sources in the article count towards notability. For GNG we expect to see high quality INDEPTH and independent sources - not self authored pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the sources one by one and came to much the same conclusion. The KresySiberia profile is based on an interview with the subject. The only possible reliable source is the Google snippet of her co-authored book Zegota, if her profile was written by someone else. Not enough. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my comment above. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, she doesn't appear to satisfy GNG or AUTHOR, and I was unable to find good sources. In fact, none of the sources cited could be treated as independent, thus precluding any notability-conferring weight. When searching, I did find four mentions in The News-Item, but mostly trivial coverage. BEFORE found nothing else. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Unless I miss my mark, there is no article on this subject in the Polish-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Irene Tomaszewski is cited on the Polish Wikipedia in ":Lista polskich miast zniszczonych podczas II wojny światowej" ("List of Polish cities destroyed in World War II"), "Krystyna Skarbek" ("Krystyna Skarbek"), "Edward Kemnitz" ("Edward Kemnitz"), and "Polish American Historical Association" ("Polish American Historical Association"). Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references here are doing nothing to establish her notability at all — they're all either primary sources, or pieces of her own writing. But a person does not get over WP:GNG by being the author of reliable source coverage of other things; she gets over GNG by being the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. The sources here simply aren't cutting it at all, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline passes WP:NAUTHOR - has authored several books, including in English, and they are being cited (just click Google Scholar link at the top of the AfD). Few dozen citations in total, according to GScholar. Borderline, yes, but I lean on the inclusionist side here. PS. The article creator has not been notified of this AFD, a technical oversight that should require relisting after the notification. PPS. Since the author is currently topic banned from commenting here, if this is deleted, I will pre-emptively ask on their behalf to userfy it for them in their userspace so they have an option to improve it in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - Notification is not required actually per my understanding of policy, and the creator here is TBANed (with relevant scope to much of this article), however he was notified of the BLPPROD on this article - on 21 June. Notification of the AfD immediately following tag removal two days later would have been superfluous and possibly taunting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of citations - it is one book that is cited per scholar refined to author - the one on Zegota (minor variations on the edition and inclusion of subtitle lead to a number of duplication) - the citation count does not rise to significant influence. Other than that, there is a co-authored position paper on gender violence cited 12 times, and another similar topic position paper cited once - so this would be a h-index of 2.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am leaning on the inclusionist side here. This is very borderline, hence my 'weak' vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came very close to calling this a no consensus, but let's see if a relist helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep established author. Passed and WP:NAUTHOR and subsequently WP:BIO. Some author are not that social. scope_creep (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This author's book on Zegota is extensively cited. For example, Children during the Holocaust by Patricia Heberer, published for the USHMM, series editor Jurgen Matthaus. Tomaszewski edits The Cosmopoltan Review, a respected online journal with contributions from professional historians: http://cosmopolitanreview.com/about-us/Tatzref (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons adduced above. Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:AUTHOR with one book, which did not receive substantive third-party reviews (or at least I could not find any). The book being cited does not help notability, as we'd need discussion of the book, not citations. Cosmopolitan Review appears to be a nn publication, so being an editor does not help either. Bottom line, there's insufficient coverage of the subject to sustain this BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established authors of books and articles that are well cited-easily meets WP:AUTHOR. There is ample information about her in reliable sources to make an informative biographical article. Much of her career was well before the internet so her online profile is going to be different that what is commonly seen today. She's doesn't appear to be someone who sought out lifestyle vanity type newspaper pieces. Yet some autobiographic content about her is found in articles that she's written in reliable sources which shows publishes have an interest in her life so also meets GNG. All of these together make it easy for me to say keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: established authors of books and articles that are well cited... is a criteria applied to academics, under WP:PROF. The subject does not meet this guideline, and being cited does not easily meet WP:AUTHOR. For WP:AUTHOR, we'd need substantive third-party reviews, which I missing in this case. If they exist, I would be happy to review them. I was not able to find any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following up on K.e.coffman's above comment, I've found at least one review through JSTOR for Tomaszewski's translation of Krystyna Wituska's letters, (I believe the JSTOR number is 25779130), and I see multiple cites in JSTOR that Google Scholar isn't picking up (including Andrew Jakubowicz and John J. Kulczycki), as well as a record here in EBSCO [81] which suggests there are more sources that may not be immediately accessible, but should be enough to pass the notability threshold.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NAuthor. The sources for her are there, with several book reviews among them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Ideally for an author you'd like to have at least one published book with enough notability to have its own article - I don't see that either. Her interesting prison camp backstory suggests that there should be some media interest, like with Irène Némirovsky, and I just don't see that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 17 July 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. ansh 666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Michigan

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

Biography written from promotional sources, previously deleted last year for promotionalism. Different from last incarnation, so as not to qualify for G4 speedy, but the contents remain mostly PR puff pieces when those refs aren't dead, unreliable, or mere mentions. See discussions re: COI on my talk page and subsequently at the noticeboard. czar 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite - the guy is known and the article well referenced. The language is NPOV and modest in scope. Some minor tinkering will get it up-to-snuff. Jimmysonoma (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references are either promotional puff pieces, dead links, unreliable, or mere mentions, as I have already said. The contents matter, not just that the topic was refbombed. It's impossible to build an article that does justice to the topic with the extant sources. czar 04:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user also appears to have an undisclosed connection with the subject, having uploaded a photo of the subject credited as a self-portrait with the explanation that image permission can be provided upon request. czar 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "undisclosed connection"? As you dragged 'em out, and in Jimmysonoma's very own words, they are "good friends and distant relatives." And the subject of the contested article offered money to the editors who previously tried creating "his" page. -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different accounts: [[User:Jimmysonoma|Jimmysonoma]]'s [[User_talk:Gernmaniul#June_2018|very own words]] Jimmysonoma and Gernmaniul. The latter disclosed on the linked talk page and the former hasn't. czar 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. There is a "yet" missing somewhere but never mind. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this text of unadulterated promotion about a subject distinctly failing WP:NBIO, WP:NMODEL (do not even try), WP:ACADEMIC (I'm going by stated assertions here), and WP:NATHLETE. Will the check clear? -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To closer: Please SALT at both this title and David Michigan (fitness trainer) czar 03:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article because he passes GNG criteria. There are enough ghits to verify notability. I put several independent magazine and National TV shows links on the article's talk page which definitely makes him notable. Gernmaniul (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that Gernmaniul has (per User_talk:Gernmaniul#June_2018) disclosed they have a personal connection to the article subject. Also, google search results are not an indication of notability, and articles written by Michigan (or shows featuring Michigan) are not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:NMODEL, WP:ENT, and WP:SIGCOV. The SIGCOV argument is pertinent to WP:GNG arguments, as it is the depth, quality, and independence of the source that matters, not the number of sources cited. Corroborating what Czar said above, the sources cited by the article are all trivial, dead-links, or not independent of the subject; this is in addition to the subject failing the more stringent WP:NMODEL and WP:ENT criteria for inclusion, which also mandates that the coverage surround a subject be in-depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Not notable. Self-promotion piece written by an editor with a close connection with the subject. Newslinger (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced with third party independent refs. Passes WP:GNG per Google hits as well as WP:RAPID.BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. WP:RAPID is for breaking news stories, google search results or hits are not an indicator of notability, and the article's sourcing is either 1) trivial mentions or 2) based upon information taken directly from the subject's videos or featuring the subject himself, and thus not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not enough media coverage - fails WP:GNG. The argued social media following and viral nature of his videos only translate to solid notability when also covered by reliable mainstream sources, or through some accepted and notable metric related to influence. I don't see that here. I'm on the fence with the salt - the deletion log for both versions of names should probably be enough. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 17 July 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. Hut 8.5 20:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Beck

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

A directory-like page an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/Chrbjelland as part of a walled garden around Hello Alfred. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources used do not seem substantial because they are merely publicity sources and nothing reliable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:57, 13 July 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 (again). No prejudice to holding a merge discussion. ansh 666 08:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure the first time out. This is still a list of just ~~six~~ (update: winnowed to three through AFD deletion of entries whose notability was not properly sourced, with two further AFD discussions still open) housing cooperatives across an entire country with tens of thousands of them — but the list is literally just duplicating the content of Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada for no useful reason. While WP:CLN specifies that lists and categories can coexist for the same group of topics in certain circumstances, it also specifies that it is not always necessary or appropriate for a list and a category to always coexist for the same group of topics: there are sometimes reasons why both should exist, and sometimes reasons why one should exist while the other should not.
Very few housing cooperatives across Canada actually have either a strong enough notability claim under our inclusion standards for residential buildings, or enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — even most of the five articles that are here are actually questionable, with Rochdale being literally the only one that's actually standing on solid notability and sourcing ground — but Wikipedia's purpose is not to create comprehensive directories of every non-notable thing that exists, so turning this into a "completist" list of cooperatives that mostly don't have Wikipedia articles to link to would be a WP:NOT violation.
So with just six entries and no viable path toward expanding it, the list isn't actually serving (and can't be made to serve) any useful purpose distinct from what the category is already doing. Even the ability to convert the list into a sortable table, which was the reasoning behind the sole keep rationale in the first discussion, doesn't make a difference — with just six entries, three of which are in the same city as it is, enabling people to resort the list by city wouldn't change the list order enough to be a compelling feature. All resorting them by city would actually do is move Aaron Webster to the bottom and Princess Towers to the top while leaving the other four unchanged. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no more reason to have this than List of stata corporations in Canada or List of subdivisions in Canada (for the single family home lover) its a massive effort to build out anything reflecting a complete list and nearly everything on such a list would be completely non-notable. I'm going to look at seeking deletion of the entries here. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added short descriptions and locations, which puts the list one step above the category, and IMO no real justification for deletion has been provided. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN, which explains that there are some contexts where a list and a category should coexist and some contexts where one should exist while the other should not, is a real justification for deletion. A category of just six buildings, of which five are potentially deletable because their articles don't actually demonstrate them as notable at all, does not need a matching list just because a list can technically add the city each building is located in. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of CLN are you referring to? Also, until entries are deleted, your other point is moot. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parts which explain the distinctions between situations where a list and a category are both warranted, situations where a list is warranted but a category is not, and situations where a category is warranted but a list is not. All three of those are possible in different circumstances — the rule is very definitely not that every category always needs to be automatically paired with a list of the exact same contents. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's not mandatory, it should be deleted? That's not a very strong argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've presented substantive reasons why this is one of those cases where precisely replicating the category as a list isn't adding anything of value. If we're going to play the "boil your opponent's argument down to the most absurdly oversimplified version possible" game, then yours reduces to "we should keep it just because we can" — but the point is not about whether we can or can't, it's about whether there's a substantive reason why we should. A list of just six entries that precisely matches a category of just six entries, where five of the six entries are potentially deletable as failing our notability criteria and there's no viable prospect of either the list or the category gaining any new entries because there are very few exemplars of the topic that would ever actually pass our notability standards in the first place, is simply not useful. It's not about whether it's mandatory or not — it's about whether the list is providing value or not, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend and arguments at the previous AFD. This second nomination, like the first, has been a complete waste of time given that the complaint boils down to "this isn't useful" rather than "this violates guidelines or policies". The sole question I see is whether there are enough entries to merit the list, and if as the delete !voters above believe, some or all of these entries are ultimately deleted, well that hasn't happened yet, and when it does they'll just have to start another damn AFD, again making this one a premature waste of time. I'm always puzzled at the volumes of text people will write to go out of their way to get something deleted not because they think it is a policy violation or inappropriate, but just because they don't agree with the utility that obviously others see. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you're already wrong about "that hasn't happened yet" — the number of entries on this list has already gone from six to four just within the lifetime of this discussion, because two have already gotten deleted. And of the four that are still here, three have active AFD discussions underway. The best case scenario left is that this becomes a list of just three things, adding nothing to its corresponding category of the same three things that is also already technically CFDable as a WP:SMALLCAT — and the likeliest scenario is that this becomes a list of just one or very maybe two things.

And at any rate, the lack of a specific rule saying that we can't do something is not in and of itself a compelling reason why we should do it. The creator of this list, incidentally, is a person who got blocked from editing Wikipedia for perennially misunderstanding how this place worked: they routinely thought that every category always had to be paired with a matching list of the same contents, they routinely thought that every category that we have for people always had to be gender-segregated regardless of whether gender was relevant to the grouping or not, they routinely created single-sourced articles of the "X is a thing/person that exists, the end" variety with no thought given to notability standards, and on and so forth — so the fact that they thought this worth creating is not a priori evidence that I'm being unreasonable. The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept — the utility of this list is far from blindingly obvious, so the onus is on you to prove that it's useful because X, Y and Z, rather than just asserting that somebody might think it's useful. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept..." Without a compelling reason for deletion, it is actually. If you're conceding that this content is permissible, then the burden is on you as the deletion advocate to provide a valid reason for deletion and establish/demonstrate consensus for that result. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unexpandable list of just four things, of which three are up for AFD as not being properly sourced as notable at all. Four things already isn't enough to need a list at the best of times, even before you take into account that within a matter of days this will be a list of just three, two or one things instead of even the four that isn't enough. That's enough of a reason in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the list has now gone 4→3 from one more deletion. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument deployed by postdlf is not tenable. ("This second nomination...boils down to 'this isn't useful' rather than 'this violates guidelines or policies'.") Well, every Wikipedia article without exception must have first and foremost encyclopaedic content, per policy. And as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, [it] should not contain indiscriminate listse. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. That's quoting straight from policy again.

A list is not an end in and unto itself. Every list in Wikipedia is commonly supposed to be used to organize information. Quoting policy once more. So, what are we organizing exactly with a list of four (4) items? Would a list of one (1) be the limit? This list does not even serve for Wikipedia development purposes, as policy allows. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compelling reason for deletion is that this page is not necessary. Only 1-2 people viewed this page per day (until the AfD spiked that), if any. Many more people just went straight to the cooperative they were looking for. Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, further to which not much more can be said. Let's be gracious (four items on the list?!) and claim WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page was created in January of 2017 and still has very few listings available. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a reason for us to write more articles on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any significant number of notable housing cooperatives in Canada to write articles about. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even 6 is enough to justify a category and a list. it has potential for growth. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was "more" to the content, interested editors would have added "more." Yet as it appears there is no "more." In fact, since the AfD was tabled, the list got shorter and shorter. You say it might have "potential" for the future but, ahem, you know, WP:CRYSTALBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't six, there are three — and two of those three, further, are up for AFD as improperly sourced, so we're just days away from this being a list of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info about individual co-ops, including those that were deleted, to History of cooperatives in Canada#Cooperative housing. There's just not enough to warrant a standalone list. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:07, 17 July 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 14:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gools

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

Unreleased, apparently fundamentally uncovered animation film, no reviews (well, ahead of release...) or other in-depth coverage to be found; fails WP:NFILM at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; subject lacks notability. Is this above or below the line? I forget. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, it can be recreated either before or after its release if it gets significant coverage in at least 2 reliable sources, preferably more, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 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 as a valid WP:SPINOUT. ansh 666 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents characters

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a single reliable source to reference a small portion of the article, the rest is just unsourced fancruft that makes this website look like a wikia. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per previous AfD and per WP:SIZE, since putting character information into the main article would be too unwieldy. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. Pure fancruft more fit for a Wikia. This information shouldn't be on Wikipedia in any capacity unless it is rewritten with proper sourcing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Andros 1337. Also, I think if it were really more like Wikia, every major character (and probably a few minor characters) would have their own article. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there seems to be a general bias on Wikipedia against children's TV series in favor of adult TV shows, which is unfortunate. IMO any votes for delete should not count since they are likely to be biased. Yes, I know about WP:AGF. but it is pretty obvious there is a bias on Wikipedia against children's TV series. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 18:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that Delete votes should not count because "they are likely to be biased"?!

You do realize that is as biased as it gets, don't you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (a) the subject fails WP:PURPLIST, (b) Wikipedia is not Wikia, and (c) it is made up of red hot WP:OR. The lack of sources is not surprising; that's how it should be. Such lists along with the sections about plots of movies are all-you-can-eat opportunities for WP:OR aficionados. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TWO sources in TWELVE years (and they might as well not be; one is a creator's ineligible Twitter post, the other in the opening paragraph says '[Warning: this post contains dangerous levels of sarcasm!] The excruciating wait is over - last week, Nickelodeon gave in to the demands of the arthouse film community and green-lit a live-action TV movie adaptation of its hit cartoon, The Fairly Oddparents', so it doesn't attempt to be serious). I'm tired of giving good faith and hope that a bunch of editors who can't even maintain a semblance of a WikiProject will actually maintain this article sanely and source their inanity at the most base level. And @Andros 1337:, that 'bias...against children's TV series' is exhaustion with editors who don't want to put effort into any sourcing; if the MMA and pro wrestling communities were able to get their acts together, I still hold out some hope the kid's TV editors who aren't reverting vandalism and cruft regularly eventually will. But in twelve years, we need to take out the trash if we keep piling on; this is literal hoarding in article form. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs inline citations, and it should be cut down to just the primary and main supporting characters. See List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters as a model. Newslinger (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed all of the characters from the "Other" section, which considerably reduced the article length. I've also added a {{condense}} tag. Newslinger (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT / merge back to main article retaining only the main characters. That can be sourced by press releases, encyclopedia of television shows / cartoons books, website from years ago. I've tagged this article for in-universe/refimprove for years and nothing's really improved especially when most of the edits have been attempts to try to move Vicky off the main character list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable shows always have a character list article when all the valid information won't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. JDDJS (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I'm sympathetic to the TNT argument. When there are dozens of pages about various media of a show, it's generally reasonable to have a page on the characters; the episodes of the show are an implicit reference for the content. The main article is also better without long character descriptions and minor characters on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on this taking too much room up in the main article. Also, I understand the WP:OR and sourcing arguments, but those seem to be more relevant when we don't have many "informed" eyeballs focused on verifying content. This isn't obscure chemical variations of plant enzymes - it's a show that every fan will be able to quickly spot errors and fix them, with or without proper sourcing. (Heck - I'd just source with the episode name, whether it can be viewed online or not). That's the beauty of crowdsourcing. I know this position isn't supported by any formal policy and the purists will be angry, but if it works and brings enjoyment to some readers, why not just let it go? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:55, 17 July 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media independence

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

Very comprehensive article, however largely a reproduction of the UNESCO report found here, page 102 onwards. Very much written essay style, with large sections of text copied right out of the article. While the license seems compatible, neutrality or independence may be questioned as largely aligned to the one base source. The topic is also already covered in Freedom of the press and other journalism/media related articles. No doubt an important topic, however this does have POVFORK elements and the UNESCO report should be referenced in existing articles where appropriate to allow a more comprehensive overview. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The creator of the article, Sarah GM, appears to have made it their purpose in Wikipedia to upload long texts copied from published articles and papers written by other people and create articles out of them: Human rights and encryption; Online youth radicalization; Online hate speech; Multi-stakeholder governance; and so on and so forth.

In their own words, editor Sarah GM is a "young graduate in Political science, International relations from Sorbonne." But this is not how Wikipedia works at all. Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is of a notable subject (currently has 41 references) that is a distinct subject from Freedom of the press. The fact that it has been written for another purpose before does not make it unsuitable for Wikipedia, it is the same as a single Wikipedian writing an expansive article on their own. There may be issues with tone, but this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it, I've added a tag at the top of the page to encourage people to do this. It would be very helpful if there was more guidance on how to write in Wikipedia's tone. John Cummings (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best sourced texts are academic papers, practically by definition. The contested article is made up of text lifted up wholesale from a specific paper. This practice has been openly declared by the article's creator, and can be found in perhaps half a dozen other articles so far, created by the same user. No matter how "well written" or "well sourced" the academic paper is, Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. The Wikipedia article on "media independence," if it should exist at all, remains to be written. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs amending as per MoS, but other than that it's good, notable, well referenced content and belongs here. The editor's qualifications aren't relevant so why bring them up? Battleofalma (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has questioned the qualification of the author - this is primarily about the closeness of the author to the topic, which in this case probably includes the vested interests of John Cummings as UNESCO Wikipedian in residence. Allow me to reiterate the main concern: the article in question is essentially a reproduction of a UNESCO report - it follows its thinking, its structure, uses the same headlines and terminology and goes as far as including entire passages or slightly rephrased passages. The addition of sources give it an appearance of being broadly covered, however, they are largely the same sources included in the very same report. If this was the work of a WP editor in the absence of the UNESCO report, this would probably fall into the category of WP:OR or publication of original essay work. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to reproduce entire works published elsewhere, especially if originated by other governments, supranational organisations, NGOs, consultants or other interest groups. This undermines Wikipedia's reputation as unbiased source of information. Yes, the topic per se is of interest and - personally - I'd like to see an article on this. However as this article is far too closely aligned to one previously published work, I believe this is a case of WP:TNT._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: If that theory was true, our coverage of US military history would have to be deleted wholesale (see the category documenting that group of content). We evaluate each article on its coverage of the topic, not by the style or source of that information. Complex concepts like media independence are probably best compiled by experts, and its is our job to incrementally improve that to better meet the expectations of the Wikimedia community. Sadads (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: This appears somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand you admit that the subject is complex (I agree!) and best compiled by experts, then again you state that it should be *evaluated* by the community. Clearly, this community consists of volunteers who, most likely, are not experts. How can a mere mortal ever evaluate the work of so-called experts? This is a dangerous precedent. On the one hand, COI editing is disallowed, but then we are supposed to regurgitate something published by organisations with their own agendas under the veil of "being experts". Why then don't we just hand over the articles for companies, products or artists to their marketing or PR teams? Surely they are the experts? I don't quite see the community of volunteers as the mop-up team for all this closely related original thought editing. Clearly, UNESCO (or the UN in general) is not free of inherent, systemic political bias. Whatever is published is a consensus of power structures within. Taking something systemically biased as a starting point to reach neutrality IMO will never work. Btw, I don't disagree with your point about military history articles, although I know you don't mean it. Military history tends to be written by the winners and government sources should be used with extreme caution. I'd rather not have an article than have one that is a copy/paste job from a govt. website under public license, hoping that 10 years from now someone will notice inherent errors._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads:@Jake Brockman: I think the qualifications of the editor were clearly brought up erroneously as some sort of criticism. This article has 41 citations from reliable sources. The subject is notable, and covered by a wide-range of organisations and isn't just a niche UNESCO idea, the COI is something to manage but it's being managed actively by the WiR, it needs some amendments as per MoS but other than that there's no reason for deletion. Battleofalma (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep We include work from the US Government and not reliable sources in the public Domain (such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). I don't see how this is any different, and the content is probably more reliable from the UN, than from other sources. Rewriting, cleaning up, and incrementally removing content, is much better than WP:TNT. Sadads (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We include work from everywhere, including from the US government, as long as the "everywhere" are reliable sources per Wikipedia. Incidentally, we do not use "not reliable sources" - at least we do not condone their use, which means that if we find out a source is unreliable it is discarded.

But we include such work as a source, though. We do not use the text as an article. What the creator of this article seems to be doing is essentially uploading papers (written by others) onto Wikipedia, paraphrased of course, and creating new articles. The practice is explicitly forbidden: Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: That is actually a false set of assumptions and statements: see the category documenting that group of content using US Gov text in the article and the category for articles that use EB 1911 text. Other language Wikipedias do the same thing regularly as well. We can use source material that is appropriately and compatibly licensed, as long as they are attributed correctly, and the text is converted into Encyclopedically appropriate writing. This has been a practice since I started contributing in the community in 2005-8, and with rise of Open Access content, could be a powerful way for us to cover topics that are hard for volunteers to synthesize. That doesn't mean that the article should "stay as it is now", rather that the source text offers a foundation for us to expand, refine and better meet our audience. Sadads (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made no assumptions and I fully stand by my statements. The two Categories to which Sadads linked actually support my position and run contra to what Sadads claims.

In the first one, "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government", we find articles that reference various texts published and made available by the US gov't. At random, we pick a sub-category, "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges", where articles such as for example "Rosemary Barkett" cite that directory. Nothing illegitimate or even controversial about that! In the other category, "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica", we find exactly the same thing: For example, the article "John Abernethy (surgeon)" cites the Britannica. Again nothing untoward.

All the articles in these two categories (there many other such categories) are fully legitimate, and about subjects of independent notability. What we're dealing with in this AfD, though, is wholesale transformation of scientific papers into articles. And this is not the same thing at all. We can use 1911 Britannica and US gov't texts in the public domain as sources, yes, but if we start uploading verbatim texts from these sources and make them out as articles we're violating policy. Wikipedia is not a depository of scientific papers. -The Gnome (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These publications are not scientific papers, UNESCO publications almost exclusively secondary or tertiary sources. John Cummings (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true (though I am not sure and "almost" does restrict the statement), however no matter how this AfD ends, I feel this may warrant a broader discussion with the community. The main issue I see is how far WP:OR and WP:NPOV actually go: is something that was published as original research by an organisation/individual/government and reproduced on Wikipedia very closely to the original publication still OR (effectively OR by proxy) and if so, how does this close relationship to a previously published piece fare with independence or neutrality. If such a discussion has been had, maybe someone could post this, I did not find anything._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome, John Cummings, Sadads, Battleofalma, and Sarah GM: this has now been posted on the OR noticeboard at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Reproductions of studies or other such publications _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "media independence" is well-established, with over 5,000 exact-phrase results from Google Scholar. The article is well-sourced with inline citations from reliable sources. The license of the source material (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) makes it eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. While the tone of the article needs adjustment, and there may be conflict of interest or neutrality concerns, neither of these issues would justify the deletion of the article, since the concept of "media independence" is notable and verifiable, and there are no licensing issues with the text. Newslinger (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The term is fairly well known and notable enough to have its own article. However, it is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and Wikipedia still is an encyclopedia, not a collection of papers and essays. WP:OR issues need to be fixed, but that would be better than deleting an article on a topic that is definitely notable enough to have one. Tillerh11 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No convincing argument for keeping put forward. Sufficient consensus to delete. Michig (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lok

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

Mostly promotional article lacking reliable sources. Key claims to fame are not independently verifiable and seem to revolve around claims made by the subject. Most sources are primary or closely related PR. While it may be true that he has been invited as speaker and appeared on TV, there's little reliable, independent coverage *about* the subject as opposed to what is *output* by the subject. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: no part of the article is promotional in nature. The article is a simple biography of a person who is notable on 3 counts: as a martial artist, as a business founder and as an author. The article in no way promotes or puts the person in good light and only describes his career and life history in a factual manner. We should not be using the deletion option to address any such issue but I do suggest that nominator point out what in the article is promotional to follow WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The subject has written atleast 9 books which are in their selves good citations and make him notable. A google search shows that many reliable references are present (some of which are already in the article). --Rubyking27 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Note: This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of user Danthemanlok who created an original version of this article. See below. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly does not meet notability requirements as a martial artist WP:MANOTE. Don't think WP:NAUTHOR is met either.PRehse (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danthemanlok _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content and article meets WP:GNG criteria of wikipedia. The article is about a notable subject. 64.231.242.134 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — 64.231.242.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The article creator is also the subject of the article himself, which means this is a case of WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added WP:COI notices to Dan Lok and Talk:Dan Lok. Newslinger (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep: Person is covered in reliable sources such as ABC, NBC, and Fox news which prove notability of Dan Lok, therefore the article should be kept. 24.17.167.248 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC) — 24.17.167.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi there, thank for your view. The claim that he appeared on those TV stations is based on a press-release by the subject so we cannot independently verify this. What is interesting though, the one show that was picked up by several networks, "America’s PremierExperts®" is an interview style. A look at their website tells us their mission is "To showcase Experts who are dedicated to spreading knowledge and awareness in their field while making significant contributions to their industry and the marketplace as a whole. In exchange for the knowledge these experts contribute, America’s PremierExperts® is dedicated to promoting them in their field of expertise, by offering business owners, entrepreneurs, professional speakers, teachers, lecturers, authors, professionals and corporate CEOs exclusive opportunities for further exposure and growth in the marketplace." Digging a tad deeper, it seems that "America's PremierExperts" is owned or managed by "CelebritySites" an Orlando based marketing firm and content provider. I think it's safe to assume that we are dealing with TV advertorial contents. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I see the weak aspects of the sourcing of the article and have read the above debate and Jake's explanation of sources. It is a good idea to keep the article for now and if more sources are not available in future, it can be renominated. However, I would like to see if the article can develop if given a chance as the bibliography section of the person rings some notability bells to me. Talking about TV coverage, TV coverage does not need verification by news sources, infact TV coverage is a secondary source in itself and therefore should be taken as WP:RS. It is an assumption that the coverage is advertorial which we should not take at face value and give the article six months (which is the normal time before an article should ideally be renominated) to see if it can be improved. 50.100.174.75 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC) — 50.100.174.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Not notable. Article written by subject - blatant WP:SPIP. Hiernonymous (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A distinct lack of notability. Citations to promo pieces in magazines like Life as a Human and Jet-Set. Some cited sources in the article don't even mention Dan Lok. The article may not be written in a promotional way, but the intent to promote is clear. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 22 July 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kenvyn Jones

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

This seems to be a vanity biography created by a single-purpose account with a likely undeclared conflict of interest. The subject has had a career in provincial theatre and the media but I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources to provide notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very strange. The infobox stated that Peter Kenvyn Jones had a CBE and MC. I sent an email to him to check whether this was correct, and within minutes of listing this AfD and making the email query, these honorifics were removed, not by the article's creator but by another new editor who had previously moved the article out of the creator's draftspace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think I can also contribute to the debate, I was the one that move the page. I looked through the whole article before moving it with the taught that it will also be looked at by other editors.~~

~~To the issue of editing the article earlier today, I guess the duties of editors is to fix articles.Armyman (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been in Wikipedia "since October 2010," Cwmhiraeth. It should not be "strange." -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually a little surprised at how few reliable source mentions I could find for this individual, given that the article claims he is a CBE. I was able to find only glancing mentions in reliable sources, nothing that would indicate notability under either WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Clacton Gazette and The Oxford Student are both reliable sources, although not a national newspaper. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails the criteria for WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reviews of his compositions. They are all "referenced" by his postings of them at SoundClick. The theatrical career (as actor and/or director) is referenced to theatricalia.com. and uktw.co.uk, both of which are databases with user-generated content or not referenced at all. There are no reviews of his performances or productions and they were all in small provincial theatres. The only review from an independent source was in the Oxford student paper for his theatrical adaptation of Pride and Prejudice performed by the Oxford Theatre Guild, an amateur company. The references from the Clacton Gazette have only passing mentions of him. As an added note, the shenanigans re the phony CBE and Military Cross and the moving of the article out of Draft space strongly suggest undeclared paid editing and quite possibly socking as well. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. The subject used "Peter Kenvyn" (without "Jones") as his professional name until the early 2000s. Under that name, I found one review in The Independent of his 2001 performance in the play The Incarcerator and a mention of his translation in a 1991 review in The Stage of a Pierre de Marivaux play: "Laurels should be heaped on Peter Kenvyn, a comedy writer of considerable TV and radio experience, for coming up with a sparkling translation which has all sorts of contemporary resonance". In my view that's still not enough to pass any of the criteria cited above. Worse, there are several assertions in this article which appear to be untrue, e.g. him having some sort of role in Luther. Or, very misleading. For example, the small part of Prince Albert was in a program produced by the BBC, but it was for the children's TV program Blue Peter, not a mainstream production. The various credits taken for Jacques Brel translations are also dubious. The critic in The Stage wrote "While script associate Peter Kenvyn also takes credit in a programme note for the translations, at least six of the songs, to my reckoning, are delivered in the English versions that were first heard in Mort Shuman and Eric Blau’s celebrated 1966 off-Broadway compilation, Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above unsigned commentary by Voceditenore.

Delete per nomination, for failing WP:CREATIVE. May otherwise be notable, and handsomely too, but not for Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. Tillerh11 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Both the article's creator, User:Artsmusicfeel, and User:197something aka "Armyman", who moved it from draft to article space and removed the spurious claims to a CBE and Military Cross, have been confirmed by a checkuser as socks of the indefinitely blocked User:Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr, a prolific sockmaster and paid editing operation. The article possibly qualifies for speedy deletion under G5: pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the contested page records 8 June 2018 as the date on which the article was created. The sockmaster was banned on 8 August 2016. The contested article "Peter Kenvyn Jones " should be Speedily Deleted per WP:G5, as stated above by Voceditenore . This AfD has just been rendered redundant. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, The Gnome, in cases like this it is often better to let the AfD run its course and show a consensus on the subject's non-notability. This can be helpful in the event of future recreation, and this may well happen. The paid editing operation behind this article and dozens of others is relentless. They have re-created deleted articles multiple times using different throw-away sock accounts each time, including the ploy used here where one sock creates the draft and another sock moves it into article space. Alternatively, the subject might choose a different paid editing "service". Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 13 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women at a Secret Meeting: From Wives to Coeds

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. Significant RS coverage not found, what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. References in the article are self-published, promotional, or unselective databases. The "9th best film" award is not well-known or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject does not meet WP:NFILM. "9th place" only? Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In any other field, coming in ninth for a competitive award would be described as "losing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 12 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Fujii

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our overbroad inclusion criteria for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PORNBIO & GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 21:40, 12 July 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DotLab

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

Apart from a bunch of PR stuff, typical short-coverage about a newly founded startup.Does not pass subject notability guidelines. ∯WBG^converse 03:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with being none notable appears to be written by a sock of a paid editing firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I can find are mainly PR-type ones, not independent reliable sources. Doesn't seem to meet corporate notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes horrible. Fails NCORP by a long way. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PR sources, can't find anything to establish notability per WP:NCORP. (Above second nom to keep things separate). Basie (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sock work based on PR sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am also nominating the following related pages:

The reasons are:

created by the same obvious UPE, and is also horrible example of PR writing (the quotes! gah). I did my best to clean it up and got this far but than ran out of good refs. The refs are a bunch of blogs and SPS of various sorts. While she has won some awards (MIT 30 under 35 in 2016) there is almost no high quality coverage of her.

nothing about the person nor the company in fierce biotech

nothing about her in Xconomy nor about the company

nothing in main forbes site (where Matthew Herper writes)

NYT only the marriage announcement already cited

nothing in SF Chronicle

This is really Theranos-ish, which I hope this does not turn out to be. the lack of coverage in the biotech industry and high quality sources is disturbing, however.

But this is WP:TOOSOON for now.

Pinging the nominator and those who have already !voted - User:Winged Blades of Godric, User:Doc James, User:PohranicniStraze. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a marriage announcement is a fairly week source. Support deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per doc:)Support deletion.∯WBG^converse 09:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established. Not ready at all. This was one of my first accepts back in the day. I have learned from this. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora Summers

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. 2 short films and 2 bit parts don't quite meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. And can't find anything to show she passes WP:GNG (but not surprising considering her years of activity). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be IMDb. We do not seek to have articles on everyone who ever appeared in a notable film, and nothing short of such a broad criteria would include Summers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actress with 475 google hits (raw count) and some directory style listings. 4 movie appearances in 1925-6. PER IMDB - One uncredited (Ben Hur), one uncredited in an undetermined role, one short movie where she is a waitress, and one short movie where she is the wife of the main character - so not much reason to think she would have much coverage for this.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncredited role does not get automatic notability even if you were in one of the greatest films ever made. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 14 July 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. Mz7 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Piggott

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Unfortunately, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both general and military notability requirements. The Croix de Guerre seems to have been awarded quite widely, so not enough to meet criteria #1 of WP:NSOLDIER, and he doesn't meet any of the other criteria. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to the claim about the "wide" awarding of the Croix de Guerre. Heroism is not as widely dispersed as it may seem. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: The award was the Croix de guerre (Belgium), which has multiple levels, many of which look like they would not meet NSOLDIER. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not pass our notability requirements; poorly sourced and main claim to notability seems to be an award that was not all that uncommon. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 08:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:09, 15 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Beardsall

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Unfortunately, meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Subject doesn't meet general notability or notability for military personnel. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- does not meet our notability requirements. Only claim to notability appears to be a military award that was bestowed 100,000+ times. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ortizesp (talk) 02:36, 13 July 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 08:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque (2005 film)

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not the Bradys XXX and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Ain't Charmed XXX.

First AfD closed as "keep" but arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFILM & GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 21:40, 12 July 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 article is a strictly negative BLP, so even if this individual were marginally notable this isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus is that this individual is non-notable per NOTNEWS/1EVENT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hubly

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

Where to start. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1EVENT, and WP:BIO apply. reddogsix (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please forgive any formatting errors as I'm a longtime wikipedia editor who is new to adding completely new articles. I tried to move this to "The People Vs. Justin Hubly." If that satisfies all the stated concerns I would appreciate it if the deletion notice would be removed so I can move it. Jboud (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)JBoud[reply]

Comment - Once the AfD is complete the tag will be removed. AfDs generally last 7 days. reddogsix (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I, the creator, agree that it needs to be deleted and moved. What is the point of leaving the notice up for 7 days. Why not just allow me to move it? Jboud (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)JBoud[reply]
Edit & Move I think this would be an okay article if it was edited down (too many details) and information was included in a new article People Vs. Justin Hubly and information was included to indicate newsworthiness.
Comment Jboud you are welcome to set up a new article in your own sandbox and work to make it more Wikipedia-ready.

Note: this was really bad advice. What we now have at User:Jboud/sandbox is a copy-pasted duplicate of the original. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for why this is a (very) bad idea. I've gone ahead and deleted that copy unde WP:G6. If you want to start a new article, from scratch, that's acceptable. But don't just copy-paste the existing one to use as a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a move changing the fundamentals here: WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Neither the person nor the trial are notable. The coverage is not substantial, it's all local WP:MILL coverage of a court case, or WP:DAILYMAIL gossip coverage of "high school teacher has sex with student". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the sources are local media, so fails WP:AUD (yes, I know AUD is listed under WP:NCORP, but the same logic applies here) and WP:MILL. Fails WP:1EVENT. Fails WP:BIO. Do not move this to another title; that doesn't solve anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 16 July 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. Whether it is kept as a standalone article or merged to the Wayne Static article can be discussedon the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Wray

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Death by suicide does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Update: I would support a redirect to Wayne_Static#Personal_life, where the subject is already sufficiently covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sad story. No shortage of references in the article and independent verifiable sources on and beyond. A book example: in this book (linked at the first of two relevant pages), published by the prestigious McFarland & Company, she has her very own biographic entry. This biographic entry and many of the articles are WP:INDEPTH. Not in in depth, she is also mentioned in the 2014 volume of the same book series when her husband died. While Wray may fail the professional standard, the books and national and foreign press articles clearly draw her across the WP:GNG line. A press example: one of the UK's huge three national newspapers published this article focused on the life and death of Tera Wray. This international interest in the late actress, model, and show host emerges also from the fact that over a dozen other Wikipedias have articles about Wray. Would add sadness to the story if only her home WP decides to delete her biography while so clearly meeting WP:BASIC! gidonb (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few passing references does not add to meeting GNG. A total and clear fail of our notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to merging with Wayne Static. Most of the available RS coverage, not well-reflected in the article, discusses her in the context of her late husband's work and career. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She wasn't notable as a porn star and most of the reliable source coverage has to do with her being the wife of Wayne Static, who himself is notable and related to her suicide. I'd be fine also with the article deleted and redirected to his, under the Personal life section. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources on Google News, Very sad story, Anyway I wouldn't have any objections to merging but the history should be kept regardless of the closure outcome (except delete obviously). –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect with Wayne Static - it seems she's primarily known through association with him. I'm unimpressed at Gidonb saying "A press example: one of the UK's huge three national newspapers" without mentioning that said national newspaper is considered an unreliable source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ritchie333, I couldn't possibly have mentioned what I did not know at the time but thank you for bringing this survey to my attention. As you correctly quote me, it is just an example. I'll provide another one instead: Porrstjärnan död efter tragedin med artisten translation from Swedish: Porn star dead after tragedy with artist. Furthermore: there is this returning suggestion, also here, just to merge bios of people with those of their slightly more famous spouse. Mostly these are suggestions to merge the bio of the wife into that of the husband, i.e. a form of toned down chauvinism. In my opinion this should only be considered when one of the partners does not pass the GNG. Not the case here! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be WP:SNOW, it so obviously meets general notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:33, 14 July 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. czar 01:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Rose

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article created by coi - it should be noted coi indicated they are not related; however, they claim ownership of copyright of related image. Prod removed by coi. reddogsix (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NCREATIVE. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, for failing WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources found WP:MUSICBIO Act345 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 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.

[1] Monitor 2011, 12 books Seth Godin thinks you should read, Boston, Mass.

[2] "What's On Your 'Must-Read List?'." Broker. (October 2001 / November 2001 ): 797 words. Nexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2018/07/08.

[3] Willoughby, M. 2015, "Ignoring fear", The Mississippi Business Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 11.

[4] Johnson, L. 1999, "A reading list for those who want to succeed", Management Today, , pp. 98.

[5] Clary, J.M., Hadari, M.K., Holmwood, A.B., Schmidt, S.A. & Shapiro, R.S. 1994, "Sales ideas from young Top of the Table producers", Life & Health Insurance Sales, vol. 137, no. 5, pp. 6.

[6] Zailskas, S. 2007, "Book It", Professional Builder, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 29.

[7] "You've Got to Read This Book: 55 People Tell the Story of the Book That Changed Their Life", 2006, Publishers Weekly, vol. 253, no. 27, pp. 68.

[Dembkowski_2006-8] Dembkowski, S. (2006). The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching. Thorogood. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-85418-657-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. goal. setting. Introduction. Without clear goals, executive coaching relationships can become just a forum for rambling ... our experience those that have proven to be most useful are those based on the acronyms of SMART, PURE and CLEAR.

[Bianco-Mathis_Nabors_Roman_2002-9] Bianco-Mathis, V.E.; Nabors, L.K.; Roman, C.H. (2002). Leading From the Inside Out: A Coaching Model. SAGE Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7619-2392-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. The first step is to translate each goal into objectives. Whitmore (1996, pp. 55-56) stressed that good objectives need to be not only SMART, but also PURE and CLEAR: • SMART: Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-phased • PURE: ...

[Salazar_2006-10] Salazar, M.K. (2006). Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing. Elsevier Saunders. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-4160-2374-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal-setting must be realistic, yet challenging; enthusiastic, yet disciplined. 2. Qualities of a good goal are: S.M.A.R.T., P.U.R.E AND C.L.E.A.R. (Box 7-1). End goals serve as the final objective to be achieved. 1. These goals are in alignment ...

[Wood_2007-11] Wood, A. (2007). A Comprehensive Library Staff Training Programme in the Information Age. Chandos Information Professional Series. Elsevier Science. p. 355. ISBN 978-1-78063-106-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. ... CLEAR (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally Sound, Agreed, Recorded), 110, 193 PURE (Positively Stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical), 110, 193 SMART (Specific/Stretching, Measurable, Achievable/Agreed, Realistic, Timebound), ...

[Niermeyer_2008-12] Niermeyer, R. (2008). Teams führen. Kienbaum bei Haufe (in German). Haufe Verlag GmbH & Company KG. p. 67. ISBN 978-3-448-09043-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Formulieren Sie Ziele, die motivieren Wer seine Ziele mit der SMART-PURE-CLEAR-Methode formuliert, verhindert die häufigsten Fehler, die bei der Zielvereinbarung vorkommen: SMART PURE CLEAR • Ziele werden zu hoch oder zu ...

[Frank_Messina_2011-13] Frank Messina, E.D. (2011). Two-And-A-Half Minutes To “Effective”: Daily Thoughts for Improving Your Effectiveness in the Areas of Communications, Coaching, and Delegation. Xlibris US. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-4568-7930-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. believe creates a good chance of our reaching that end goal. ... goal setting, Whitmore reminds us of the need for clarity in setting goals. ... That mnemonic is, S.M.A.R.T. Goals (Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time phased). He also refers to P.U.R.E. Goals (Positively stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical) and C.L.E.A.R. Goals (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally sound, Appropriate, and ...

[McCarthy_2014-14] McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring for Business. SAGE Publications. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-4739-0432-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART, e.g., EXACT (Wilson 2007), OPUS (Stoltzfus 2008), PURE (Whitmore 2009) and CLEAR (Whitmore 2009). Wilson describes EXACT as a goal ...

[de_Jong_2014-15] Jong, E. (2014). Goal Setting for Success. Personal Development for Beginners. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-4954-4884-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal setting was originally only done in business, but in recent years, this technique has gained popularity as a tool to help ... use SMART, PURE & CLEAR, with each letter representing specific criteria that needs to be met when setting a goal.

[ProQuest_2018-16] "The Seven Steps of Effective Executive Coaching". ProQuest. 2 July 2018. Retrieved 2 July 2018.

[Archivo_Digital_UPM_2011-17] "A sustainable management model based on business excellence as applied to mining companies". Archivo Digital UPM. 5 July 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2018.

[Day_Tosey_2011_pp._515–534-18] Day, Trevor; Tosey, Paul (2011). "Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting". Curriculum Journal. 22 (4). Informa UK Limited: 515–534. doi:10.1080/09585176.2011.627213. ISSN 0958-5176. … Goal setting and action planning using NLP's well-formed outcomes framework can be … Churches and Terry (2007) recommend employing an NLP- influenced SMART framework (specific, with … with the addition of further NLP elements using the mnemonic PURE (the outcome is …

[Bianco-Mathis_Nabors_Roman_2002-19] Bianco-Mathis, V.E.; Nabors, L.K.; Roman, C.H. (2002). Leading From the Inside Out: A Coaching Model. SAGE Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7619-2392-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. The first step is to translate each goal into objectives. Whitmore (1996, pp. 55-56) stressed that good objectives need to be not only SMART, but also PURE and CLEAR: • SMART: Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-phased • PURE: ...

[Salazar_2006-20] Salazar, M.K. (2006). Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing. Elsevier Saunders. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-4160-2374-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal-setting must be realistic, yet challenging; enthusiastic, yet disciplined. 2. Qualities of a good goal are: S.M.A.R.T., P.U.R.E AND C.L.E.A.R. (Box 7-1). End goals serve as the final objective to be achieved. 1. These goals are in alignment ...

[Dembkowski_2006-21] Dembkowski, S. (2006). The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching. Thorogood. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-85418-657-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. goal. setting. Introduction. Without clear goals, executive coaching relationships can become just a forum for rambling ... our experience those that have proven to be most useful are those based on the acronyms of SMART, PURE and CLEAR.

[Wood_2007-22] Wood, A. (2007). A Comprehensive Library Staff Training Programme in the Information Age. Chandos Information Professional Series. Elsevier Science. p. 355. ISBN 978-1-78063-106-6. Retrieved 2 July 2018. ... CLEAR (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally Sound, Agreed, Recorded), 110, 193 PURE (Positively Stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical), 110, 193 SMART (Specific/Stretching, Measurable, Achievable/Agreed, Realistic, Timebound), ...

[Niermeyer_2008-23] Niermeyer, R. (2008). Teams führen. Kienbaum bei Haufe (in German). Haufe Verlag GmbH & Company KG. p. 67. ISBN 978-3-448-09043-7. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Formulieren Sie Ziele, die motivieren Wer seine Ziele mit der SMART-PURE-CLEAR-Methode formuliert, verhindert die häufigsten Fehler, die bei der Zielvereinbarung vorkommen: SMART PURE CLEAR • Ziele werden zu hoch oder zu ...

[Frank_Messina_2011-24] Frank Messina, E.D. (2011). Two-And-A-Half Minutes To “Effective”: Daily Thoughts for Improving Your Effectiveness in the Areas of Communications, Coaching, and Delegation. Xlibris US. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-4568-7930-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. believe creates a good chance of our reaching that end goal. ... goal setting, Whitmore reminds us of the need for clarity in setting goals. ... That mnemonic is, S.M.A.R.T. Goals (Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time phased). He also refers to P.U.R.E. Goals (Positively stated, Understood, Relevant, Ethical) and C.L.E.A.R. Goals (Challenging, Legal, Environmentally sound, Appropriate, and ...

[McCarthy_2014-25] McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring for Business. SAGE Publications. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-4739-0432-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART, e.g., EXACT (Wilson 2007), OPUS (Stoltzfus 2008), PURE (Whitmore 2009) and CLEAR (Whitmore 2009). Wilson describes EXACT as a goal ...

[de_Jong_2014-26] Jong, E. (2014). Goal Setting for Success. Personal Development for Beginners. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-4954-4884-3. Retrieved 2 July 2018. Goal setting was originally only done in business, but in recent years, this technique has gained popularity as a tool to help ... use SMART, PURE & CLEAR, with each letter representing specific criteria that needs to be met when setting a goal.

[ProQuest_2018-27] "The Seven Steps of Effective Executive Coaching". ProQuest. 2 July 2018. Retrieved 2 July 2018.

[Archivo_Digital_UPM_2011-28] "A sustainable management model based on business excellence as applied to mining companies". Archivo Digital UPM. 5 July 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2018.

[Day_Tosey_2011_pp._515–534-29] Day, Trevor; Tosey, Paul (2011). "Beyond SMART? A new framework for goal setting". Curriculum Journal. 22 (4). Informa UK Limited: 515–534. doi:10.1080/09585176.2011.627213. ISSN 0958-5176. … Goal setting and action planning using NLP's well-formed outcomes framework can be … Churches and Terry (2007) recommend employing an NLP- influenced SMART framework (specific, with … with the addition of further NLP elements using the mnemonic PURE (the outcome is …

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]