Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.S.F.Patil

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

The page reads like a CV copied and pasted onto Wikipedia. Autobiography/COI. Previously CSD'd under G11. Cahk (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete executive directors of some functions of a university are not inherently notable. No actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are so many new articles being sent to AfD within a few days of being created, in this case the same day? Yes, the quality of the article is poor, its format is inappropriate, and it doesn't have references. But is the subject of the article notable? He has an Award for outstanding teaching & research in Radiochemistry; he is a Nominated Eminent Scientist on the Governing Body, Maharashtra Association for the Cultivation of Science, and has apparently "Initiated new lines of research: Hot Atom Chemistry, Radiation Chemistry of Solutions/Solids, Activation Analysis, Color Centers in Halide Solids, Luminescence in Alkali Halide Crystals, Diffusion in Aqueous Solutions/Solids using Labeled Isotopes and Conducting Polymers". Don't those claims suggest that he may indeed be notable, and it is the article which is lacking? What about WP:ATD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he would be notable as an academic, but it seems the article was written by the same person.I did a search on google scholar, and it seems there are quite a lot of papers written by SF Patil, not sure if its the same person in all of them. but only one of of those papers was cited by more than 100 people(231 to be exact), all others have less than 65 citations. Daiyusha (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record on GS is tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
delete Apparent autobiography with no references. My own search didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG or the research citations I'd expect to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Sandals1 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment. Delete because of issues detailed above. I have nothing new to add to the lack of notability. As one of the people who does copyedit work, and am fairly new to it on here, I always wonder why such badly formed articles are allowed to begin with. Even if it was notable, I would want (though perhaps it is incorrect to want this on Wikipedia) for it to be draftified until the original author could get under some control. Doesn't have to be perfect of course but this isn't even an article, it's a list of things this person supposedly did. Someone else would need to come by and change it to prose and deal with all the WP:MOS issues. That doesn't seem quite fair when the original writer didn't even make an attempt. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of notability issues have been well addressed above. Wikipedia is not a place to host your résumé. - tucoxn\^talk 16:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:38, 14 December 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. TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation at some point in future. Tone 18:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dory Nason

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

A few mentions found in searches, won a minor award, fails WP:GNG, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the requirements of either WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. She has been publishing and will do more. The article is mistaken in her position. She is not yet an assistant professor; she is a senior instructor at UBC. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have corrected her academic position (I wonder if this was confusion between the US system and others?), even if it is WP:TOOSOON for an article! RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests that Nason meets our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable citation record in GS; insignificant Worldcat library holdings; apparently low-ranking faculty member; no notable awards or other distinctions relevant under WP:PROF. She was one of many contributors to one potentially significant publication, but I notice that the reference for that work being "groundbreaking" is her own faculty profile. I checked GS, Worldcat, Newspapers.com, Google and Google Books - all under both Dory and Dorothy - but did not see anything that would get her over the GNG bar. I note some close paraphrasing from her faculty page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, TOOSOON and Larry Hocket's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:39, 14 December 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. If somebody wants to take a shot at writing Murder of Sara Tokars , any admin can restore the contents of this for reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tokars

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

Lacking notability beyond WP:BLP1E. References mostly consist of passing mentions of the subject with no significant coverage or are articles authored by the subject who now works as a journalist. One Where Are They Now style reference has a focus on the subject. This is an autobiographical article that continues to be heavily edited by the subject. Longhair\^talk 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possible re-purpose to Murder of Sara Tokars (the murder itself seems to be a rather clear NCRIME pass). The 4 year old son (with bits of coverage of the "where is he now" - [1] - is not notable). Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or refactor to Murder of Sara Tokars per Icewhiz. Low-profile person associated with a notable event. No strong evidence of notability per WP:JOURNALIST. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor to Murder of Sara Tokars. Since this is BLP1E, we can cover the notable incident instead. Rzvas (talk) 19:08, 8 December 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 04:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MChat!

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find evidence of notability, or even existence, other than product's website. Page appears to have been created by product owner's now-blocked WP account. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wonder, does "MChat" really exist? I tried to find the resources but they're coming from the personal weblogs dependently. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article by Dmr chat with no declared COI. This looks like a semi-realised project, with pages on the website "under constraction", and I am finding no evidence that it ever attained WP:NWEB/WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be simple promotion of the chat. Lacks any report by third party sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:06, 18 December 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. Tone 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Rakhmatulina

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

Non notable. No reliable and significant coverage. ToT89 (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 9 December 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. Tone 18:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text to Voice (Firefox)

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

Non-notable Firefox extension, seems to be created under COI by "Vikramjoshi.iit", who also appear to have created this extension. There's absolutely zero reliable sources to support this article, failing WP:GNG. theinstantmatrix (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as others (failing WP:GNG). DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 12:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with above points. Cautilus (talk) 23:35, 12 December 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 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual (Oomph! album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM there is one review of the teaser and this is not enough to show it meets the notability criteria. This should be a redirect to the group's page until there are multiple non trivial coverage of this album. The article creator has removed the redirect twice now without adding the required coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the top of the page? I've added in SEVERAL magazine articles covering the release of the album, not just the Overdrive Magazine version. As well as the two sources that I was in the process of adding when you nominated the page for deletion, I've also got the following posts:

http://bravewords.com/news/oomph-reveal-new-album-details-teaser-for-kein-liebeslied-single-posted

http://www.side-line.com/oomph-unveil-title-teaser-tracklist-and-artwork-of-new-album/

http://www.roooar.com/music_uk/news-releases-oomph--ritual-cd-in-january-8553.html

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/oomph_reveal_details_of_new_album_ritual_preview_new_single_kein_liebeslied.html

That makes at least half a dozen independently published articles regarding the release of this album. How many more do you want before I pass the eligibility criteria? Eddiehimself (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of brave words it's all routine stuff about an announced album that contain a trck list and at best a quote from the group. brave stuff does not cover the album itself but is more about the group and a single than anything else there is no review of the songs on the album and they do not seem to have received a copy and only the teaser and this is still routine. Not enough in my opinion to meet WP:FUTUREALBUM. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well your opinion clearly differs from what Wikipedia says about Future album releases:

"generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.

Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it."

In this case, the album, track listing, and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist, and independent sources. So regardless of your opinion, it definitely DOES meet the criteria for WP:Futurealbum.

Also, what's this business about the articles cited being 'routine?' A control+F search of Wikipedia's Music notability page reveals that the word 'routine' isn't mentioned once on the entire page. It's completely unfair to nominate an article for deletion on the basis of something that isn't even present on the notability criteria pageEddiehimself (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddiehimself: Did you read the part that states "articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release"? All we know is that it has a name and a few tracks. Who is the producer? Who did the audio engineering? Who did the mastering? Where was it mastered? What are the lyrical themes? That's what's meant by "reliably sourced information about a future release". A potential release date and a track listing isn't enough. It still fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM so it does not deserve an article. Also, you're looking for WP:ROUTINE.

Keep Multiple reliable sources exist and it does appear to meet WP:Futurealbum to me. -dashiellx (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that your comment is almost exactly the opposite of mine. Which reliable sources do you see? this is clearly not a reliable source nor is this. They have no author. No author here and only a track listing. is written by Eddiehimself] (yes, the other editor commenting here). From the article, https://overdrive-mag.com/2018/11/16/oomph-unveil-details-for-upcoming-album-ritual/ "Overdrive Editor" isn't particularly informative, and it's not significant coverage, as can be said for Daniela Vorndran's entry at https://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/news-mainmenu-99/releases-mainmenu-166/18801-oomph-unveil-all-details-of-upcoming-album-ritua-l . So @Dashiellx:, I may have missed it, but where are the "multiple reliable sources" you write about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I can't find any either. As of now, the album does not meet WP:GNG with the WP:ROUTINE coverage that I found. It's likely just WP:TOOSOON and clearly does not meet WP:FUTUREALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oomph!. When the album has been released, and there are charts entries and/or reviews, then and only then can the article be restored. If the article still keeps getting restored without significant improvement in sources, then delete and salt. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I can't say the coverage is resplendent, in a couple of citations the subject is treated in sufficient detail to establish notability. Contrary to the discussion above, I found overdrive detailed enough and to be a secondary source of satisfactory reliability. I would be content with merging the principal details into the band's main article (redirect). AGK ■ 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Bad quality, but all the problems can be solved. WP:NALBUM is fine here. Coltsfan (talk) 19:26, 15 December 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 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irshu Bangash

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines Wikipedia:DIRECTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

Previously it was declined numerous times at Draft:Irshu Bangash by @Miniapolis and Chetsford:. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at WP:DIRECTOR. Some films may be notable but notability is not inherited, the article's subject is not the focus of any references. Ifnord (talk) 05:21, 15 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Sohma

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

This article fails WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shigure Sohma

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

This article fails WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 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. Tone 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final ASP

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

I don’t think this passes WP:ORG Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it may or may not pass GNG, but once factoring in WP:ROUTINE and the higher WP:NORG requirements, it certainly doesn't satisfy notability. It doesn't have a clearcut redirect target either. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 21 December 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. WP:G4 by MelanieN based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global One Belt One Road Association Foundation - and page salted against recreation. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GOBA Foundation

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP with the lack of significant coverage and WP:GNG. Flooded with them hundreds 07:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 8 December 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 11:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wale Aladejana

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources provided are unreliable, and even if they were reliable, they do not provide significant independent coverage of the subject, and mostly include photos of the subject at various publicity events as well as quotes. I originally submitted this for PROD, dePROD by RebeccaGreen. Here is the Google search that I did of the subject, before nominating it for PROD: [2] Not a single of those is significant coverage in a reliable source. If you search on Google proper, you get a bunch of less reliable sources and Youtube videos made by the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reason for dePRODding was: "Searching on two forms of his name (Wale Aladejana and Adewale Aladejana), I find many more sources which do provide significant independent coverage, and which need to be assessed for reliability." Since this has now come to AfD, I will add some here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are of poor quality, they are either puff pieces from likely unreliable sources or are about the company rather than him. My limited experience when looking at Nigerian websites is that many don't do the most basic fact-checking. My inclination is therefore for a delete, although I will wait to hear from someone with a better understanding of Nigeria websites before deciding. Hzh (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list may be of some use. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On another search, I would agree that the coverage (under either version of his name), although significant, is not reliable and is often not independent, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:47, 15 December 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. As opposed to the list for the US presidents, this one has zero sources so it is hard to argue that it is not OR or SYNTH. Tone 18:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia, trivial article that is a list of various tenures of PMs of Sweden and the number of former PMs alive during that tenure.Unlike the Australian page, this sweden page has no corresponding "List of PMs by age" page. Creating a page for the "list of PMs of sweden by age",and deleting this page, might be more in tune with an encyclopedia in my opinion . Daiyusha (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:6DF9:CF69:96D8:F52E (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to the Prime Ministers of Australia AfD. We already have List of Prime Ministers of Sweden which is a much more encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia and original research Spiderone 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid topic per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:Systemic bias 82.132.186.90 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument about creating a "List by age" holds no water - such an article would give no indication that there were once 11 living PMs, nor any indication of whether such an occurrence were a regular occurrence or not. This article conveys significant information that conforms to WP:5P1. The lack of references provides no support for deletion; the raw information - dates of accession and dates of death - is clearly attributable, even if not attributed in the words of WP:OR. The additional information - numbers alive at each moment - is easily derived by simple calculation (WP:CALC). Hence, this is by no means WP:OR. YBG (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I add that the proposal to delete this article but leave the corresponding UK PM, US President and US VP articles un-nominated leaves WP open to a charge of being UK- or US-centric. The AfD for the US Presidents list (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States) (a strong keep) has many arguments that apply equally to this article. The arguments that do not directly apply to this one are the arguments that cite specific discussions in the popular press. This may be because such discussion has not taken place in the Swedish press, but without access, I have no way of knowing. YBG (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the age lists do not easily or clearly show the same information. Closeclouds (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt,the age lists do not show the same info, but other than the "list of former PMs alive right now", its not very likely someone would try looking for number of former PMs alive during a particular year. Daiyusha (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ajf773. It's unsourced and violates WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer talk 02:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons given by YBG above (especially in his latter posting). /FredrikT (talk) 13:26, 14 December 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. Tone 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Carl

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:1E. A very junior academic (a postdoc, in fact) who does not satisfy the notability guideline for academics and whose notability really comes from one single event. Atchom (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Seriously, look at the references: three separate instances of WP:SIGCOV for separate incidents in reliable sources over a year 1 2 3. The fact that one of them was front-page news doesn't mean the others don't count - in fact the latest incident in which he was consider notable (the letter) is a result of previous incidents in which he was considered notable (his controversial research activities, speaking at the London conference) and is therefore not actually a single incident per se. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS - can I just point out how unhelpful this delete proposal is? In no particular order:

1) There's no sign that WP:BEFORE was performed.

2) There's no attempt to engage with the other events discussed on the page. In the proposer's view these apparently don't meet the criteria for notability, but they haven't stated why when that was obviously a topic that would come up here.

3) The proposer has stated that this is a BLP based on a single event. Per policy the normal solution to that is merge/redirect/rename to a page discussing the event, not delete as a first step - but no reason for going straight to delete was given, or potential merge/redirect target proposed as an alternative solution.

4) No attempt at tagging the page with a notability notice first to allow a chance to improve it.

Imagine I was a new editor and this was my first article - would this encourage me to engage with Wiki further? FOARP (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry that the article creator feels that way, so I feel I should elaborate. Firstly, I don't think it is in dispute that the person in question is an academic, so WP:ACADEMIC applies. The subject of the article fails all 9 possible notability criteria as set out by the article, which isn't surprising given that he is merely a postdoc, and a new one at that.

Of course, the article can then still be saved under the general notability guidelines. Now, there is no disagreement that the recent coverage of the person (because of the attempt to get him fired) has attracted considerable coverage. However, WP:1E would require that there should be coverage of the person not in relation to this particular event.

Of the two other sources FOARP cites above, one is an article by the Guardian about some research he and others published which quotes him. That's not coverage of the subject of the biography, but coverage of the research with a quote from the person. Academics routinely provide quotes to the media, and there is absolutely nothing about Carl in the Guardian piece. As to the New Statesman article, it mentions him as one of many who went to a controversial conference in London. Again, this does not constitute "significant coverage" under WP:SIGCOV, and neither changes the fact that his notability is essentially derived from one event.

Atchom (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The New Statesman coverage amounts to two long paragraphs and in my view rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. Here they are in full:

"Our investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence uncovered the involvement of at least 40 academics from at least 29 different universities in 15 different countries. Among these was the Oxford academic Noah Carl, a postdoctoral researcher in the social sciences at Nuffield College, who has spoken twice at the London Conference on Intelligence. Carl has also written several papers for Emil Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych, which include two looking at whether larger Muslim populations make Islamist terrorism more likely, and one suggesting that British stereotypes towards immigrants are “largely accurate”.

One external reviewer responded to the last paper by stating that: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.” Nevertheless, the paper was featured by conservative US website The Daily Caller, under a picture of Nigel Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster. The far right European Free West Media cited the paper to claim that “criminal elements are represented by certain ethnic groups”, and on the blog of a far-right French presidential candidate under the headline “Study validates prejudices”. It even ended up on InfoWars, one of the most popular news websites in the USA, and can be found circulating on far-right corners of Reddit. The fact that Carl is linked to Oxford University was mentioned frequently in the coverage, providing legitimacy to the political opinions presented."

I believe this section rises to WP:SIGCOV since Carl is not merely mentioned in passing in a long list of people but is described with his research in some depth, as well as the way he serves to legitimise certain views. This meets the requirement that the reference "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - it talks directly about him and discusses details of who he is and what his significance is.

Inherent in the most recent event (the letter) is that there were previous events which were also notable (i.e., the activities that the letter complains about). These previous events were also reported in reliable sources (e.g., the New Statesman). Even if you don't think that the NS ref was WP:SIGCOV then the coverage of the letter also acts as coverage of the same events that the New Statesman reports (i.e., two separate events).

Finally, if you believe this to be a WP:1E situation then why are you proposing deletion? FOARP (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atchom, did you see the list of sources I compiled in the talk page? There's a lot of stuff, most of which is related to the ongoing event, but it's very likely that Carl will be in the media again as soon as his interview ban is lifted, or if he gets fired. So seems pointless to delete this page based on WP:1E only to have to recreate it in a few days. It makes more sense to just expand it and add more sources as they come out. Deleet (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atchom: I assume you wanted to reference FOARP as I haven't actually contributed to this discussion. PriceDL (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. Corrected above. Atchom (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that Deleet is Emil Kirkegaard, founder and editor of the OpenPsych journals in which Carl has published several papers, including one with Kirkegaard himself as a co-author. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and also why I am abstaining from voting or editing mainspace here. Deleet (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kirkegaard, commenting here really doesn't help anything. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This comes under fringe theory rules, and we lack the coverage needed for a fringe theorist. In fact, he just plain fails academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE is not grounds for deletion but instead rules how fringe theories should be handled in articles. This article is not about a fringe theory but about an academic whose work may amount to fringe theories. Plenty of cranks and flim-flam artists are worthy of coverage in an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic coverage does not imply any endorsement of the subject - often quite the opposite since it is the degree to which the subject if wrong that is often the reason for their notability. WP:ACADEMIC is not the relevant standard here since it is not really his contribution to the academic field per se that is the reason for his notability, but instead the controversies around him, WP:BASIC is the appropriate standard, and since he is notable for more than one event (I count at least three - his research, the London Conference, and the letter - all reported in reliable sources) he meets that standard. FOARP (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep. BJP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bpesta22, would you care to explain why you believe that Carl is notable enough for an article? IntoThinAir (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is significant coverage of his activities, and then the letter complaining of them, not sufficient? FOARP (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like coverage of his current situation will be ongoing; his other research has been covered elsewhere (by reliable sources), and the London Conference thing was also covered by the media. All these combined led me to vote "keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FOARP and Bpesta22. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When the deletion tag was added, the article was a stub and only had four references. It is being developed, and there are many notable sources discussing this man. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He may not be a very senior academic, but he seems to have been involved in sufficient controversy as to help him meet our notability criteria of substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 16 December 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) 09:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wook Kundor

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

Thoroughly unremarkable and stunningly implausible longevity claim. This borders on self-parody, almost the entire "article" consists of some truly bizarre marital issues (with far more credulous reporting than is warranted, Elizabeth Taylor had nothing on this lady!). There's WP:NOPAGE here, if this is really notable enough for a mention anywhere it's best handled on the Longevity claims article in a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. She belongs on the list at Longevity claims, but marital problems are WP:ROUTINE, even though her situation certainly has its own unique flavor. There is not enough to say about her of substance to justify a standalone article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E/BLP2E lacking in-depth coverage. Mainly covered for her marriage at age 104 and 107 - same coverage is rehashed in a few books. Coverage is not INDEPTH. Possibly merge to an article on bizarre marriages if we have one - but can't think of target - and this is rather gossipy. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 10 December 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) 08:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Israel

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

I'd PROD this, but there is technically a first AfD here. Despite the puffery in the article there's no evidence that this is "one of the most widely reported longevity claims in recent years", and in any event it only states that she was born, lived for some indeterminate time, and died. Once stripped of the filler material about Guinness and the GRG, there's clearly WP:NOPAGE here; the claims about her birth and death dates are best handled on a list in the Longevity claims article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. Her age claim is so outlandish that she scammed some news coverage, but she barely even qualifies to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age of 128 is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The actions of the boosters who engaged in promoting her longevity claim might make them notable, but Israel herself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 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) 08:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Johnson (supercentenarian)

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

Longevity claim with almost no substance. Once stripped of all the irrelevant filler material about other old people and the verbose circumlocutions about his military service, we're left with a few news outlets mistakenly claiming he was the last WWI vet. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. The article is packed with longevity fancruft like he was the oldest man in California, family lore of claimed famous ancestors, and the standard longevity secret. This article and its content are not needed anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — While the longevity claims are impressive, those alone are not granted inherited notability. An assessment of sources available lead me to believe this individual falls way short of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:55, 9 December 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. Relisted twice without any further comments, no consensus reached. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Madland

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

Not independently notable – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not quite sure what the nominator meant by "not independently notable". Sources are given the article, and unless someone more knowledgeable about Kurdish sources are willing to examine the sources more closely to establish that they are not RS, I would keep it as satisfying WP:GNG for now. Hzh (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 8 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi support of Baloch rebels

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

Redundant since we already have Insurgency in Balochistan#Iraq and 1973 raid on the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan. Furthermore, the sources have not provided enough coverage to this subject that a stand alone article would be warranted. Orientls (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant WP:CFORK -- this article's content is already covered in other named articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:08, 10 December 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 Draftify. Consensus that he fails notability but could meet it in the near future. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Ismagulov

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

Subject is an MMA Fighter. Fails WP:NMMA notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's true he fails to meet WP:NMMA. However, his victory last night in his first UFC fight almost guarantees he'll get at least two more fights with them--barring injury, suspension, or similar event. I understand that's WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it's why I'm hesitant to vote delete on someone who I think is likely to be notable relatively soon. If I was forced to make a decision, I'd have to vote delete at this time but I was thinking it might be better to put it into draft space instead of deleting it. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inter&#38|Papaursa|PRehse Thank you for your comments and interest in this article AfD. I understand the reason behind of draftifing the page instead of deletion. I have drafting a few pages before in the past. However, the reason to nominationn for AfD instead of draftiying is that for the fighter to meet the WP:NMMA means the fighter needs to fight another 2 more fights provided their contract is not less than 3 fights. A draft would only stays in the system for 6 months before it is deleted which means not only the subject need be booked and fought 2 more fights within next six months provided the subject and their opponent do not pulled out due to injuries before the fights and the medical suspension after a fight is in its minimum duration. All this is WP:CRYSTALBALL and we know that in the fight game, anything could happen even on the fight day. Secondly, if a dratified page moves back to main space by confirmed user, we can not re dratify as as the "draft" copy of the small subject is existed and we still need to get back to AfD process. It is much easy to recreate the page when NMMA is met as we the reveiwer just nee to click check on the review button.

I truly believe an editor create a fighter article without the knowledge of the WP:NMMA requirements and I am one of them where I have created a few fighter articles when I started joining Wikipedia family before I found out there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and WP:NMMA requirements. The things here is "consistency" applying WP:NMMA. Since the guidelines have been set and if we dont apply them consistently and allowing one article to draftied the the other to be AfD deleted, then we would face editors stating our biasness and setting a case for them to attack the guidelines. If a page fighter page fails WP:NMMA and has not been AfD and allows the fighter meets the WP:NMMA which most likely it will happen that is another things. Since there are only a handful of gate keepers in MMA project in AfD, I hope to reach an understanding of agreement in consistency for I would not want to AfD a page where it is not call for or it is not the practice of of following WP:NMMA guidelines for I do not want to have a misunderstanding or work against each other since we are a small group here in AfD MMA. All I want is collaboration and work in good will. I have give my 2c and I need to know where we stand. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - mostly per the same reasoning Papaursa gave above, subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NMMA but there is a good chance he will in the near future. WP:TOOSOON if anything. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Papaursa. A lot of work went into the article, and if the chance of meeting notability requirements at WP:NMMA are imminent, it would be a shame to lose it. Ifnord (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. Likely to be notable soon, but not yet. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, coverage in sources given is trivial Uninvited Company 20:48, 20 December 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) 08:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rytasha Rathore

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

Editor created an article for herself (delete nom), her father (deleted), and in this article, her sister. Rytasha Rathore seems borderline notable due to her role in a Hindi serial, but considering the editor's close connection to the subject, some additional scrutiny is necessary. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article requires improvement but she seems to be a notable actress Spiderone 09:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually I can't find much evidence of notability Spiderone 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like she meets WP:NACTOR; maybe she will in the future, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:58, 9 December 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) 08:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Joe Campbell

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference is a list of members which could not establish nobility. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. He was in 182 episodes of one show over 8 seasons on a major network. So recognizable they used him in character to explain how TV's worked. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had some notable roles and as had several independent reliable source news sources cover him in detail so meets the GNG. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Rmhermen's comment. Campbell's eight seasons as part of the main cast on According to Jim is very impressive. What bothers me is the WP:NACTOR guideline, which expects multiple major (significant) roles, but he has many guest or recurring roles across a number of TV series in the years since According to Jim. All that appears to sum up notability on NACTOR grounds (especially with all the seasons he was on According to Jim), even if it may not technically meet point #1 in the guideline. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main role for 8 years is pretty significant in my opinion. I know WP:NACTOR suggests multiple main roles but hard to do that when locked down for that much time on a single series. The article as it stands has one source but multiple significant coverage sources are available as pointed out in the discussion above. Subject looks to meet WP:BASIC (and intent of NACTOR) but article needs work to include those references. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 14 December 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 Byzantism. Should anyone see anything worth merging, the article history is still there. Michig (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine complexity

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

Dictionary definition. Zero references Openlydialectic (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD. Can think of no encyclopedic topic to merge or redirect to. Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep: Byzantinism might work. Take a look at the second paragraph in the lede. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an alternate definition of the word Byzantine; "Byzantine complexity" isn't generally used as a multi-word phrase. With no sourcing (since 2004), I don't see how this can be kept; perhaps a soft-redirect to Wiktionary is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Byzantinism, which should mention the dictdef. A one-sentence definition is all that needs to be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Byzantinism. Agree with the logic above, but with no sources whatsoever, there's nothing to merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:27, 8 December 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 to delete. bd2412 T 02:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian)

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

Another non-notable oldster. Though the article claims she received public recognition, the lack of sources gives the lie to the idea that, apart from her one meeting with Margaret Thatcher, it was anything other than routine coverage. Once stripped of the irrelevant and grossly over-detailed filler material about meeting up with Maggie for tea, plus the fluff about being the oldest person in ~~an arbitrarily defined geographical area~~ a country (modified 20:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC) in the interest of clarity, accuracy, and deescalation) we're left with WP:NOPAGE; maybe a minibio on List of British supercentenarians, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge and/or Redirect to one of the various lists of oldest people or to Marske-by-the-Sea (where she lived and is mentioned). As the oldest verified person from a major country her name is definitely a plausible search term so outright deletion is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like what year of Queen Victoria's reign she was born in, how many monarchs and prime ministers she lived under, had tea with a famous person, and got to stay in a nice hotel on someone else's dime. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Newshunter12 said. Spot on. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a mini-bio on List of British supercentenarians. The Brits do love their elders. — JFG ^talk 00:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This nomination seemed to be based on a justifiable exasperation with the GRG's habit of spewing cruft, rather than on a proper examination of the topic. Neither the nominator nor any of the other editors commenting give any indication of having done any WP:BEFORE research at all.

Additionally, I taker issue with the nominator's assertion that Hughes was the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area. She was in fact the longest-lived person ever in the United Kingdom, which is major OECD nation rather than an arbitrarily defined geographical area.

The article probably meets WP:GNG as it currently stands, since there appears to be at least two substantive articles on her: BBC and Guardian.

However, it was a trivial exercise to find more sources in The Times archive and in Newsbank:

Paul Wilkinson. "UK's oldest person dies at 115." Times [London, England] 18 Mar. 1993: (~200 words)
"Widow, 110, flies on." Times [London, England] 5 Aug. 1987: 2. (~60 words)
"110-year-old Charlotte Hughes loves the Big Apple" Newswire August 5, 1987 | UPI NewsTrack bAuthor: DON MULLEN | Section: News 368 Words
- "A Supersonic Birthday" Newspaper August 5, 1987 | San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Page: 3 | Section: NEWS 51 Words
- "110-year-old English woman visits New York" NewswireAugust 5, 1987 | UPI NewsTrack Section: News 429 Words
"Loyal customer" - Charlotte Hughes Newspaper September 14, 1991 | Times, The (London, England) Section: Home news 35 Words "Charlotte Hughes, aged 114, believed to be Britain's oldest person, had 100 years' of custom with Barclays Bank in Middlesbrough marked by a message from Sir John Quinton, its chairman, and a gift of a Victorian sovereign"
"115 TODAY..THANKS TO BACON, EGGS AND BRANDY" NewspaperAugust 1, 1992 | Daily Mirror, The / The Sunday Mirror (London, England) Author: STEPHEN WHITE | Page: 7 | Section: NEWS 254 Words

There may be more; I gave up checking the hits once I had the list above. But with all that lot, she more that meets GNG. Hughes had clearly been receiving bouts of significant coverage for at least 7 years before her death.

A decade ago, there was a steady stream of GRG-dervied articles on clearly non-notable people. Sadly, it now seems that the pendulum has swung the other way, and that some deletionists are chucking articles into AFD without doing the required preparation. @The Blade of the Northern Lights, would you please be kind enough to withdraw this nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All countries are arbitrarily defined geographical areas, I'm hardly the biggest Yuval Harari fan but he's absolutely right on that. I'd be OK with a minibio, but how does the material add up to a full article? She lived a long time, and died. It doesn't take a standalone article to express as much. Plus, merging her to the list of British supercentenarians is more informative; there's plenty enough space to give her a minibio, and then readers will be much more readily able to find out more about other old British people (and learning about old British people, presumably, was why they'd search for her in the first place, because she's not notable in any other way). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The boundaries of countries are usually defined by geographical features and/or by the outcomes of wars. Mountains, oceans and huge piles of dead human bodies are hardly arbitrary.

The use of country boundaries to denote a category is not arbitrary; it is adopting the most commonly-used existing set of geographical divisions of human populations. That is why we have for example, the United Nations rather than the United Arbitrarily Defined Geographical Areas, why sportspeople go to the Olympic Games as representatives of nations rather than of arbitrarily defined geographical areas, and why human travel is regulated by passports issued by nations rather than by arbitrarily defined geographical areas. (Try crossing any international border with a passport issued in the name of an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and see how that goes).

A standalone article can easily link to a list, so there is no advantage to merging it to the list unless it is absurdly short and/or fails notability tests. In the case of Hughes, the sources I found above are sufficient to double the size of the existing article, taking it beyond stub length. We don't, for example, routinely merge notable sportspeople or writers or politicians or scientists to a list, and I see no reason to merge notable supercentenarians. Sure, merge the non-notable; but this one is notable.

When I approached this AFD, I expected that my !vote would be to merge. However, the availability of sources persuaded me otherwise. I am disappointed to see that having made an AFD nom without doing the required WP:BEFORE, you seem to be pursuing your predetermined option even tho the facts have changed.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I appreciate your search for more coverage, and I do not put Ms. Hughes notability into question. She is, however, exclusively notable for reaching an advanced age, as the sources you found amply demonstrate: each of those reports talks about her age as the defining reason for covering her. There is consequently very little chance to expand the article, because we are not supposed to mention minor anecdotes such as flying to New York for your birthday or being a loyal customer of Barclays Bank… The suggestion to merge her article into a mini-bio on the list of British centenarians matches guidance in WP:PAGEDECIDE, part of our notability guidelines, whereby coverage of the subject within the broader context of the target page is more informative to readers. — JFG ^talk 07:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I think that is a mis-application of WP:PAGEDECIDE. That guidance is to ensure that for example, we have one cohesive article on a small town rather than a series of stubs on each of its streets. It does not mention using list articles as merge targets, and does not recommend creating omnibus set-of-people articles for notable people.

I also disagree with your application of the minor anecdotes rule. Flying somewhere for a birthday would indeed be trivial in most cases, but in the case of Hughes it is a) directly related to the reason for her notability, and b) received extensive coverage in multiple major quality newspapers. Again, being a loyal bank customer is trivia; but being a customer of the same branch for 100 years is exceptional, and possibly globally unique.

I am sad to see that the reaction against GRG-spam is producing such a disproportionate response. It seems to have moved far beyond the well-justified cleanup of non-notables to an outright hostility to the topic, which breaches WP:NPOV and several other core policies. This hostility is several driving editors to disregard substantive coverage in multiple major news sources. It seems to me that if you want to some rule which imposes uniquely onerous criteria on longevity-related articles, then you need to run an RFC to seek consensus for it, rather than stretching existing guidelines with an interpretation which is not in the text of the guideline and is not applied to other topics.

I have to say that I am shocked by the level of what seems to be uncritical groupthink in this discussion. Four editors responded without challenging the glaring lack of WP:BEFORE, which is an alarming omission. And now we have several editors effectively arguing that no amount of coverage in reliable sources can justify a standalone article.

A similar process of contra-policy groupthink is evident in multiple discussions at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, where multiple editors followed each other to promote actions for which they had no policy-based justification. It is notable that no less than three of the first five contributors to this discussion (@The Blade of the Northern Lights,Legacypac, and Newshunter12) were amongst the team of editors who followed each other around that CFD page to repeatedly insist on perverse and unjustified outcomes. The whole thing seems to derive from WT:WikiProject Longevity#AfDs_of_individual_biographies, which is based on the premise advanced in this edit[3]] by @JFG that subjects lacking independent notability beyond their age should be merged. There is no policy basis for that assertion, and it is very disappointing to see the extent of tag-teaming in the wake of it. WP:BIO1E refers to people notable solely through coverage of a single event, and it is a patently ridiculous stretch to use that policy as grounds for merging an article about someone who received sustained substantive coverage for a least seven years, across multiple events, solely because they all relate on one attribute. (Many, possibly most, short biographical articles elate to one attribute. For example, we have hundreds of thousands of short articles on minor sportspeople who only ever played for one team, or minor politicians who only ever represented one party in one elected office, and there is zero practice of merging them into one blob article of "Foo Party member of the Ruritanian Parliament" or "Players on the Foo sports team".)

We also have @The Blade of the Northern Lights's bizarre and sustained assertion above that a country is a arbitrarily defined geographical area, again without any policy basis. I note that nationality is one the defining attributes mentioned in the lede of nearly every biographical article per MOS:OPENPARABIO, and that categorisation by nationality is specifically recommended in WP:Categorization_of_people#By_nationality_and_occupation. TBOTNL's position is not just making up policy to suit a purpose; it is flagrantly contradicting long-established policy and guidelines.

I value the cleanup of GRG cruft, but I am alarmed by what I see here. It seems to me to be something close to a POV-pushing cabal whose conduct is starting to mirror some of the policy-averse POV-pushing of the GRG/WOP cabal which caused such drama a decade ago. The GRG/WOP crowd's tendentiousness went through multiple ANI/AFD dramas before eventually ending up at Arbcom with lots of sanctions. Please do not follow them down the same path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many, possibly most, short biographical articles elate to one attribute – Personally I'm for as much elating as possible, other things being equal. E Eng 13:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a joke in my typo, @EEng. We all need more things to smile at, and — as you say — as much elating as possible.

And now that you are here, it would be good to see an experienced editor like yourself commenting on the substance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to say "experienced and respected", no doubt. E Eng 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My category nominations are an altogether separate issue, you can chalk that up to me not being all that familiar with that area of Wikipedia. Besides, that's basically a one-off situation, and once those come to whatever resolution there aren't a ton more sitting around. As to this page, it should be clear I agree with JFG, but I don't want to bludgeon this discussion so I'll bow out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @The Blade of the Northern Lights. I had hoped that you would reconsider your stance against actual policy and guidelines, but it seems not. So we'll leave it to the closer to weigh the policy-based arguments per WP:CLOSEAFD. My reading of WP:Non-admin closure is that this AFD should be closed by an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:BrownHairedGirl has turned into a crusader against Wikiproject WP:LONGEVITY. This is an area subject to DS. Invoking Non-Admin closure pretty much says the other voters (in this case experienced editors) are full of it and shoild be ignored. Using a bunch of "auto notable" athlete pages, that many people don't think should be allowed either, as justification for keeping pages on people who only got a little press for not dying as quickly as others is a WP:WAX. Anyone that lives to 100 or so is going to have done a bunch of things a long time and lived through a bunch of history. Like Sarah Knauss said on being told she was the world's oldest person - "So what". Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legacypac, no I am not a crusader against Wikiproject WP:LONGEVITY. I could become one if you persist, but so far I have objected vociferously to some of the actions by members of that project in the last few days, viz:

The massive disruption caused at WP:CFD by a slew of near-identical nominations by Legacypac and TBOTNL, which raised the same issue and should have made as a single group nomination
The blatant tag-teaming by members of that project in those ~dozen CFD discussions, in which they parroted a line that had been agreed somewhere else without regard to its disruptive consequences
The tag-teaming at this AFD, in which WP:LONGEVITY members piled in to ignore the lack of WP:BEFORE
The repeated instances on this page of WP:LONGEVITY members blatantly misrepresenting policy or inventing policy

Now we have Legacypac continuing the same shoddy game.

Legacypac refers to a bunch of "auto notable" athlete pages, that many people don't think should be allowed either. "Many people don't think" is not how policy is formed on en.wp; we decide by WP:CONSENSUS, rather than by one of two editors taking it upon themsleves to act in the name of what they believe to be some silent majority. If you think that policy is wrong, then open a WP:RFC to change it, but don't simply dismiss it on the grounds that you reckon some other people support your view.
We have existing policies on notability. They do not give automatic notability to long-lived people (as the GRG crew wanted), but nor do they exclude notability being formed on the basis of longevity (as the WP:LONGEVITY believe). If you want to make it part of the notability guidelines, then open a WP:RFC

If, as Legacypac claims, the WP:LONGEVITY members are experienced editors, they should know better than to conduct themselves like this. I can recall no encounters with WP:LONGEVITY until yesterday, but I have been appalled by what I have seen in the last 24 hours.

And finally ... yes, if the WP:LONGEVITY members here persist in their misrepresentations of policy and their fabrications of poliy, then the closer of this discussion is obliged to ignore them. That is long-standing XFD policy, and if the closer fails to discount the nonsense being peddled here, then the closure will be rapidly taken to DRV. I urge WP:LONGEVITY members to clean up their act instead of shooting the messenger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even Admins are subject to policies against casting aspirations and making personal attacks. Nominating categories for deletion that contain one or three pages is not disruption it is cleanup. Exercise caution. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, the article and category issues are altogether unrelated. The category issue was the result of categories being a Rube Goldberg machine with which I am unfamiliar, and which I seem to have inadvertently helped create a mess; it was unintentional, and discussion of the issue there belongs there. This is about whether an article should be kept or deleted. As I seem to stand accused of murdering people today, or something, accusations of fabrications are fairly mild... but I, anyway, am not arguing no one can be notable for living a long time. I should also say I have great respect for BrownHairedGirl's work all over Wikipedia, so I neither take nor intend any of this to be personal; no reason to get stressed over Wikipedia matters. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Legacypac: I stand by what I have written above, and make no apology or retraction. if you believe that my comments on conduct are unacceptable, feel free to bring them to wider attention at WP:ANI. But before doing so, you may want to actually read WP:NPA, and esp WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? .... and also beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Personally, I'd prefer not to have all the drama of an ANI trip, but if you do want a spotlight shone on WP:LONGEVITY's activities as documented here, then go right ahead.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do understand that the making of the multiple nominations arose out of lack of experience with CFD. That's a good faith mistake, but it became problematic because of the subsequent tag-teaming in which several editors expressed a desire to depopulate other categories which they believe shouldn't exist, but where nobody has sought a consensus to delete them.

Anyway, I am glad to see that you not arguing no one can be notable for living a long time. If so, then in view of the GNG-meeting significant coverage of this topic, I presume that you will withdraw your proposal to merge or delete this article. It would also be nice to see you strike the stuff about nationality being an arbitrarily defined geographical area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was being a bit overly philosophical, which I have a lifelong penchant for. On this article we seem to primarily disagree on whether it should stand alone or be part of a list, and indeed the coverage she did receive was due to her longevity; in either instance, whatever happens her longevity would be the reason for a mention anywhere on Wikipedia. I backed away from the category discussions because I saw something went off the rails and didn't want to make it worse, I'll try to do some reading and figure out a solution for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her notability does seem to derive from longevity. I have not seen any genuine policy-based reason to support the assertion that means her bio should be merged to a list. It's clear that some editors would like policy to require a merge, but that is a different matter. We work with policy as it is, not how we'd like it to be.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not participated in this AfD, but I have commented on several AfDs of supercentenarians that the rate at which they are listed for AfD (16 on one day, on one occasion!) precludes serious consideration of whether they are notable or not. (See especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadayoshi Tanabe (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Schmierer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sisnett, (also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (2nd nomination), as well as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Notability_criteria?) The assumption seems to be that because they reached extreme old age, they cannot be notable; and even if they are, they do not deserve an article. I think a more accurate name for the project would be WikiProject AntiLongevity. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have made a concerted effort not to flood AfD; I thought that day was too much, and (perhaps ironically) it was partially the result of lack of coordination (a couple of those were me, but you'll see that then, as with all other days, I only nominate 2-4 on any day). I hope what I've said above clarifies my own position, at least. And as long as you're here, I sincerely appreciate your work on Edna Parker and Jack Lockett; I haven't acknowledged your work as I should have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your acknowledgement, I appreciate it. I must admit that I find it hard to understand what the notability criteria or guidelines for supercentenarians are. You stated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Notability_criteria? that it is "detailed coverage of the person's life from multiple reliable sources". It seems that you regard Edna Parker as meeting that requirement, but Bernice Madigan has just closed as a Redirect (not on consensus, but by an admin deciding the result) when she arguably has a similar amount of detailed coverage as Edna Parker. I had just done some work on the Bernice Madigan article (I am not questioning the redirection because of that - I do realise that the subjects of some articles, even after improvement, do not meet notability guidelines), but where is the possibility of discussing what constitutes detailed coverage, and what does not make the grade? I have just noticed that some of the content I just added to Bernice Madigan, with references to sources already in the article, had recently (prior to my work) been removed by one of the supercentenarian deleters as "unsourced". It was not specifically referenced, but if they had bothered to look at the sources, they would have been able to add the inline citation themselves. I do not find most Longevity project members to be sincere in an attempt to determine notability criteria - that action on the Bernice Madigan article is a good example of unnecessarily cutting the article to nothing, so bolstering arguments that there is nothing to keep. Probably I should say this on the project talk page, but it is so clearly a deletion project that I do not feel at all welcome there. I will vote Delete on supercentenarians where there is no WP:SIGCOV, but it seems to me that serious, rational discussion is not welcomed in cases where there is evidence of WP:SIGCOV, if that SIGCOV comes because of their extreme old age. (Btw, I have contacted the closing admin on Bernice Madigan.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this makes me so angry. The admin who closed Bernice Madigan has responded, "Subprojects don't write policy. Not all votes are equal and its not a democracy or straight up vote. The delete side had better arguments. Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way. . What biographical data has been lost that couldn't be included in a list." Why bother at all, then? You may as well just delete them all, and I'll stop wasting my time researching and revising. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll have to agree with Thryduulf, considering the fact the she is the oldest ever of the UK (and also considering the amount of interest she can attract) simply deleting her article is not a wise decision at all. Also I add, I don't agree with the "witchhunt" that Legacypac is doing, I say "witchhunt" because this user definitely feels like it is persecuting anyone who goes against his "Wikiproject Longevity", it is simply the vibe the user gives (I might be incorrect, if then forgive me, but that comment calling BrownHairedGirl a crusader against the "Wikiproject Longevity" was totally uncalled for, such accusatory and without merit comments just bring down the discussion that really matters. Garlicolive (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This was just settling down, we don't need more bomb-throwing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll agree that we don't need any bomb-throwing, but the one who started the accusations was Legacypac, to what needed to be an impersonal discussion, so I was just responding to that which completely go against the reasonable discussion (I emphasize that the way he attack anyone who went against him as crusaders only hurts his/her own image). Garlicolive (User talk:Garlicolive) 23:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Bio. Living to be the oldest person of any nation is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." I would oppose any merge per WP:Pagelength and a lack of protection against a minibio being nuked in future against consensus at AfD. schetm (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per spirited and compelling advocacy on behalf of the centenarian articles by BrownHairedGirl with additional input here from RebeccaGreen, Garlicolive and schetm. The subject of this entry, in particular, taking into account the media coverage cited by BrownHairedGirl, is indisputably notable. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The articles provided by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) in the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, United Press International, San Francisco Chronicle, the Daily Mirror over a period of seven years before Charlotte Hughes' death.
2. Maier, Heiner; Gampe, Jutta; Jeune, Bernard; Robine, Jeane-Marie; Vaupel, James W., eds. (2010). Supercentenarians. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH. pp. 293–294. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_16. ISBN 978-3-642-11520-2. Retrieved 2018-12-11.
  The book notes:
  
  3.1 Charlotte Hughes: "A stiff brandy, bacon and eggs"
  
  The next person to exceed the 115-year limit was most probably Charlotte Marion Hughes from England. She was interviewed in the press and appeared on television, but was never interviewed by researchers on aging. However, the now deceased Peter Laslett, a historian from Cambridge University, did have the opportunity to go through the documentation pertaining to her case (biographical notes by Laslett). Her birth registration has been found.
  Charlotte Hughes was born on August 1, 1877, and died on March 17, 1993. She grew up in Middlesborough in Yorkshire, where her father ran a music shop. Until the age of 63 she worked as a teacher in a religious school. While employed there she was not permitted to marry, so she married for the first time only after her retirement. Her husband, Noel Hughes, was a retired army captain and was younger than she. They lived together for 40 years until he died at the age of 88, when Mrs. Hughes herself was 103.
  At the age of 107, Mrs. Hughes received a visit from the Queen. At her 108th birthday, she took the express train to London for the first time in her life and had tea with Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, having declared on the radio the previous day that she supported the Labour Party. "I told her I was Labour when she cuddled up to me in Downing Street. I said 'Don't cuddle me I'm Labour.' She said: 'Never mind, come and let us have a cup of tea.'" Two years later, aged 110, Mrs. Hughes flew on a Concorde over the Atlantic, traveling in her wheelchair. She was received by the mayor of New York and appeared on television. At the age of 111 she took part in a BBC program on longevity, and by her 112th birthday she had become the oldest person in England. She still lived at home, staying most of the time in her wheelchair, receiving daily home help and regular visits from the district nurse. At the age of 113, she was moved to St. David's Nursing home in Redcar, Cleveland, due to her increasing frailty and poor eyesight. She died at the nursing home from bronchopneumonia, having reached the age of 115 years and 228 days.
  According to newspaper accounts, Charlotte Hughes retained her mental faculties to the last, although she complained of not being able to remember her grammar properly. Relatives described her as extremely domineering, outspoken, and sharp; but also as friendly and witty. Asked what she considered to be the secret of her long life, she replied: "A healthy lifestyle, a stiff brandy, and bacon and eggs." On another occasion she answered: "A good honest life" and adherence to the 10 Commandments.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charlotte Hughes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hughes died in 1993. That she received substantial coverage in reliable sources in the seven years prior to her death and that she received substantial coverage in a book published 17 years after her death in 2010 strongly establishes she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to an appropriate list. I never worry about notability in these cases, but rather focus on WP:PAGEDECIDE -- what's worth saying about the person and where to say it. Here's what the article tells us about her:

Hughes grew up in Middlesbrough in Yorkshire, where her father ran a music shop. She worked as an elementary school teacher from age 13 and married Noel Hughes, a retired army captain, after retiring at 63; Noel died in 1979. She remained in robust health into extreme old age. For her 110th birthday she flew on Concorde for a visit to New York City, one of only two known supercentenarian air passengers. Hughes lived in her own home in Marske-by-the-Sea until 1991, when she moved to a nursing home in Redcar. In her final years she used a wheelchair, but remained mentally sharp.

(A quick glance at outside sources doesn't reveal anything more worth adding.) Everything else (didn't want Thatcher to hug her, Thatcher said "let's have a cup of tea", broke Woman X's longevity record, Koch was Mayor of NY, ...) is cruft.I firmly think the best way to present such respectable but simple lives is as part of a list of other similar lives, so they can be read together, instead of forcing the reader to click from one somewhat-puffed-up permastub to another. I've been saying this for years. E Eng 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: that's an odd summary. It omits a bunch of pertinent things known from the current sources, including:

the names of her parents (where available, those are a customary part of any en.wp biography)
that she was the longest-lived person ever documented in the United Kingdom (the core her notability. Why omit that?)
That the terms of her employment forbade her from marrying (such a ban has been illegal in the UK since the 1970s, so it's a significant issue)
that despite not marrying until her retirement, she still had a well-above-average 40 years of marriage (a notable consequence of longevity)
That her parents lived into their 90s, but her siblings died 50 years younger than her (a fact relevant to considerations of family patterns of longevity)
that she was invited to meet both the UK Prime Minster and the Mayor of New York (who yes, are both named, because in her lifetime each office was held by over a dozen people)
that she was a Labour Party supporter

EEng's rewrite seems to go far beyond mere removal of fluff, even unto removing both the reason for her notability and material which should be included in any biog if available. I don't know why EEng does this, but it seems sadly consistent with the repeated approach of other WP:LONGEVITY editors to minimise the content of biogs in this field.

From the book source provided above by Cunard (Maier et al, 2010), we could and should add

That she was visited by her head of state
the description of her character
Her own comments on the reason for her longevity, which is not cruft: it's her view of the attribute which made her notable

And that's before going through the 7 further sources I listed above.

EEng's description of this as a somewhat-puffed-up permastub is at best only part true. Sure the current article includes waffle like Born in Hartlepool in the 40th year of Queen Victoria's reign, she lived under the rule of five more monarchs and 24 British Prime Ministers." However, it is not a stub; at 1921 characters (337 words) "readable prose size" it is 28% longer than the 1,500 character minimum for the no-stubs WP:DYK#Eligibility_criteria .

With the waffle trimmed but the new material added, it would still exceed the DYK stub threshold.

So I am left pondering the same question that I asked myself when I saw a tag-team of WP:LONGEVITY editors vociferously demanding the removal of all extant longevity categories in a succession of discussions at WP:CFD Dec 7: why are members of this project so determined to bend or break rules and customary practice to minimise coverage of articles i=within their scope? Why this determination to both eliminate articles which in any other topic area would be kept, and also to cease categorising them by their WP:CATDEFINING attribute? In nearly 13 years editing en.wp, I have never seen the likes of that project's overwhelming hostility to their topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cogent arguments above by BrownHairedGirl in particular. The apparent bias by some editors against the existence of these articles and their appropriate categorisation is mystifying. Oculi (talk) 23:41, 14 December 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. Appears to meet criteria for WP:NACTOR, needs someone to flush out Russian references. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Fomina

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

A non-notable Russian actress. More often episodic roles in little-known films.--RTY9099 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a starring role in at least three of her films. There is plenty of Russian coverage in GNews, and there's even a New York Times review of one of her films confirming a starring role ([4]). --Michig (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Russian coverage in a Google News search with just the actress's name. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's circumference

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

Reason: Wikipedia:Content forking. The article has no substantive content that does or could differ from Earth radius. Circumference is merely radius times two pi. Modern literature preferentially uses radius. Strebe (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a redirect. The history, measurement, and concept of both circumference and radius are identical. Both are based on an idealized sphere; neither are measured directly; and knowing one implies the other. Strebe (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the same. I disagree because sources treat them separately – circumference is the ancient and practical topic used for navigation and later to define measurements of length (metre, nautical mile), whereas radius is a technical unit used primarily for astronomy. In other words, one is relevant to society, travel and history and the other is relevant to outer space. For the same reason, the two articles cover different content. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, determining the radius and determining the circumference are the same problem. Because the radius is more directly applicable to further calculation (such as area or volume), the topic is preferentially referred to as "radius" in modern literature, including in both geodesy and navigation. I agree that circumference used to be common for the reasons you give, but the Wikipedia way of dealing with something like that is to have "Earth's circumference" (which should be "Earth circumference" in any case) redirect to "Earth radius" with a note in the lede about the one-to-one relationship between circumference and radius. Should we have another article about "Earth diameter" as well, since diameter used to be more commonly used than radius? Surely not. Strebe (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow the sources. If they cover the topics differently, so should we.

Should all 149 articles in Category:Units of length be merged into one, simply because they are all directly calculable from each other?

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should all 149 articles in Category:Units of length be merged into one, simply because they are all directly calculable from each other?. No, because they aren’t. False analogy. Some of those articles are spurious and should be merged. Decimetre, for example, is a stub, will never be anything but a stub; and concerns a thing that has no history or development independent of the meter and that is defined as a calculation from the meter. Foot (unit), on the other hand, is not defined by the meter or any other unit, has many variants, and has a history independent of other units. The fact that someone or even a standards body has given equivalences does not thereby mean they are defined in terms of each other. While an inch is always 1/12th of a foot, its history and origin is independent of the foot, so it’s a reasonable candidate for a separate article. For a more reasonable treatment of topics, see Trigonometric functions, where the basic trigonometric units are all presented in one article because they all derive from the same basics. That is instead of separate articles for sine, cosine, tangent, etc. Meanwhile, circumference and radius are invertible, and now you have gobs of material that duplicates what’s already in Earth radius.

The “follow the sources” argument also does not hold, and for the same reasons. We do not have a separate article on quadrature as distinct from numerical integration even though the early literature preferentially uses that term. Strebe (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are different precedents for separating or combining topics that can be derived from each other, as in most of the measurement unit articles, and decision on a case-by-case basis seems to be the usual (sensible) approach. In this case, I think there is a distinct difference in article focus - Earth radius deals with measurement methods and the physical side; Earth's circumference is almost entirely historical in content. I suppose a workable merge could be engineered, but I don't really see the necessity. In any case, it's not content duplication/forking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article duplicates large swaths of the article, where the historical circumference measurements are discussed in detail. As for a “merge”, this article is brand new.

That's actually correct - the expanded material would fit better in there. Change to merge to History of geodesy. (I don't see what the new status of the article has to do with anything, though; much of the material seems not to be covered in the latter). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: what about the other sections? The article is still being built, but there are already at least two other sections which would not fit into History of Geodesy. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me Earth’s circumference would have to deal with the seashore problem, where the more closely something is examined the more fractal iterations interfere with averages. Somebody must have written something about this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circumference, and specifically this article, concerns only the circular model. Strebe (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: while the article does or should entirely duplicate the content of existing articles (Earth radius, History of geodesy, etc.), there is nothing inherently wrong with the title. I suggest a redirect to Earth radius, but divining a reader's intent might offer a different target. Anything not already present but considered useful should be merged to the relevant title. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect as the topics are seriously overlapped. Although circumference seems to be a more correct term, as that is what is measured, and the radius has not been directly measured, and will take a while before it is. (Perhaps diameter can be measured using gravitational waves, or a neutrino burst, but that is yet in the future when more sensors exist). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although circumference seems to be a more correct term, as that is what is measured, It is not. What is measured are angles consisting of straight lines, which, through the presumption of a spherical earth, yields an imaginary arc of a circle via trigonometry. Again, with the presumption of a spherical earth, this arc is extrapolated into a circumference and radius. Strebe (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: so far we have consensus that this is a legitimate topic, but a variety of other articles have been pointed out where there is topic overlap. We can also add history of the metre, nautical mile, circle of latitude, meridian (geography), as well as Earth and Equator (notably, the latter two being the prior targets of the two primary redirects [5], [6]).

Lithopsian posed what I think is the key question here – what would an average reader, searching for “Earth’s circumference”, or similar, expect and want to find? If it is just “how long is it”, they don't need to click on Wikipedia. I think they mostly come here to find out “what is measurement of the circumference used for” or “why is the Earth’s circumference important”? This article now does that, and could do even more if it was given time to develop. Before this article, this information was dispersed across perhaps a dozen articles, making the journey to understanding laborious and complicated.

Some merge proposals have suggested Earth radius – this is a highly technical article, aimed at geodesists, which answers different questions and is focused on the defined astronomical unit R_🜨. Another suggestion is history of geodesy, since part of that article’s scope overlaps with part of this article’s scope – in the way that human height partially overlaps with history of anthropometry.

There is no good single target article for a merge, and having this information dispersed back across a dozen articles would not help the reader. Hence the status quo serves the reader best. A compromise might be a “merge and demerge” with Earth radius to create a concept article called Earth radius and circumference (or something similarly inclusive) and a separate article called Earth radius (unit).

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some merge proposals have suggested Earth radius – this is a highly technical article, aimed at geodesists, which answers different questions and is focused on the defined astronomical unit R_🜨. Not so. Nothing beyond the symbol has anything to do with the astronomical R_🜨, and rather little of it has to do with anything geodesists concern themselves with, either. Geodesists are interested in the ellipsoid and geoid, not sphere, and therefore do not concern themselves with "radius" except as a digression. The article's bent is, actually, about an idealized radius for an idealized sphere, which is the same concern, history, measurement, and mathematical foundation for a circumference. If the article needs to be reformed or enhanced to better serve readers who might not realize circumference and radius are inseparable, then that is a project I could get behind. The fact that they are inseparable, however, argues against two articles for the same topic. Strebe (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is obviously a reasonable search term; Figure of the Earth would probably be a better target than Earth radius currently. As Earth is not a perfect sphere, this isn't simply a mathematical function of Earth's radius. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Earth is not a perfect sphere, this isn't simply a mathematical function of Earth's radius. It is. Because earth is not a perfect sphere, radius also has no precise meaning, and in exactly the same way as circumference cannot. (This is noted in the Earth radius article.) Strebe (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a purely mathematical sense, circumference is a function of the radius. However, in a more practical sense, the two have been used differently. Sailors did not navigate using the Earth's radius. Technically, they could have, the reality is, they didn't. As such, two separate articles are needed to reflect the difference in practical usage of the two concepts. This holds true, even if much of this article is repeating information that is already written in Earth radius. - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the reasons cited by others here, especially those of User:Puzzledvegetable, and also because I am not convinced by the argument about modern literature favoring radius over circumference. That's especially not the case for the literature I am used to reading: historical studies and the history of science, especially every single time the name Eratosthenes and his achievements are mentioned. If someone wants it, I could probably even produce an exhaustive list of scholarly sources that use the term almost exclusively over radius, if you want to play the WP:SOURCES and WP:RELIABLE game here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:17, 14 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources, all coverage appears to be in sources affiliated with the LDS Church (and thus with the subject), does not meet WP:GNG. It was deleted with more or less the same justification last time it came to AfD, but back then construction had not even begun. Construction is still underway according to LDS sources, but it's further along so it didn't seem appropriate to nominate for speedy deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two secondary sources to the article to increase the coverage by reliable, unrelated sources. I suspect there are also some sources that exist in French that are actually from the DRC, but I don't know French and they may only be in print, not online. I will keep searching to see if I can find more to add. One of the reasons I have added this article is that currently most temples have articles even if they are only announced. While I don't think those temples ought to have articles yet, this temple is substantially complete. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of the currently cited sources are independent, they all seem to be explicitly affiliated with the LDS Church. Additionally, just because the church building exists does not make it notable. You may be right about there being sources in French, and would appreciate seeing those. You're welcome to look harder for sources in French, though. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the construction webpage, it is not totally independent since they were paid to design the building and I didn't think about that angle. I do think that the churchofjesuschristtemples.org is an independent source. As far as I can tell, it is run by someone who gathers information about each temple from around the world. The site says at the bottom: This website is NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does that count as independent?

They're nominally independent, but I don't see any documentation of their editorial policies that would indicate that they are reliable. It appears to be a very pretty blog. Additionally, while the website is not owned by the LDS Church, the content is exclusively sourced to LDS Church press releases, so the article's still not independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that every press release makes it on the site, but I find that it has way more data and pictures than the LDS church ever releases. I think the author goes to great lengths to find people near every temple to get pictures and updates. I don't know how that site gets people in such a wide range of locations. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Glennfcowan (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not finding anything when searched in French. You're wlecome to search at the websites listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo#Library but I don't think there's anything to be found. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC) See below. Still seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON but I don't feel that strongly about about it. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. It is a bit of a challenge since I bet most news sources in the DRC are hard copy. I am going to keep looking. Glennfcowan (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on every single temple. To delete this one would just add to the systemic bias excluding articles on things in Africa in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added additional sources. I suspect there are additional sources available from Kinshasa papers, but they are probably not online.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another article. This adds up to sources that in no way are controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints covering this temple. As I said, there are almost certainly some from DR Congo. Unless people have done searches that cover all languages used in DR Congo, which is not just French, I am not convinced people have exhausted possible sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The temple is based in Kinshasa. Aside from from French, the only other languages spoken in the city are Kikongo and Lingala. I highly doubt you will find anything in Swahili or Tshiluba language sources, which are spoken much further east. I do not know of very many Lingala or Kikongo language sources in the Congo anyway (French is the lingua franc), and if you really want to contend that coverage exists in the Congolese sources, those listed in WikiProject DRC need to be checked. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've checked most of the news sources listed at WikiProject DRC and this is the only one I've found, Eglise de Jésus-Christ des Saints des derniers jours : Elder Neil L. Andersen lance les travaux de construction du Temple en RDC, a reprinted article from one of the Kinshasa newspapers. It does announce the construction project, but its mostly a feature on the Mormon elder overseeing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - well that still adds up to 3rd party coverage. We have that in multiple ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an additional source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have identified other sources such as this [7] and [8] and [9]. Here is a post about the temple and reactions to it [10]. Then there is the Norman Kamosi connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasonings in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport Beach California Temple; a new temple building in Africa certainly would be notable on the face alone going by how few temples are on that continent. Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: I think the discussion above misses the point slightly. The sources mentioned appear to be publicizing the existence of the LDS in the Congo for the benefit of American followers of the same religion - I am not convinced that this is enough to establish notability for the Church building in its own right. As Indybeetle points out, there is barely any coverage from the Congo itself and none in "serious" academic sources. Since most Congolese news-sources are online (Le Potentiel, Radio Okapi etc.) this is quite a damning argument. Personally I think the best option would be to merge the current content into the current stub that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No the articles in question are explicitly about this building. There is no requirement that the coverage be from the country where the temple is. In fact in other discussions people have tried to use the fact that coverage only comes from the local of the temple to argue to delete the article. It sometimes seems that people will come up with any argument possible to seek to delete coverage on a temple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment considering there is mention in articles publsied by The Interpretor, the claim of no scholarly coverage is not sustainable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region#Africa, or Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as suggested by Brigade Piron. Right now, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and WP:OSE does not appear to be a very good argument in this case.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources coverage that shows that the temple passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 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. Tone 19:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funding Options

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

promotional article--the references are either general references on Designated Funding portals, or mere mentions, press releases. or promotional interviews -- see WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising an objection to this proposed deletion. This proposal for deletion has been prompted as a result of a draft article submitted by me relating to Alternative Business Funding (ABF), the originator of the three current UK government designated portals. This content was subject to speedy deletion by DGG who, as a result of my appeal against that deletion, has now reviewed Funding Options for deletion as well. At this stage I simply wish to register the objection. I will add further comment once I have had time to prepare a reasoned argument for this objection.Casius12 (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman It seems we are going round this circle again. Please see the discussion that is talking place with User:DGG regarding this page and Alternative Business Funding as a result of your original deletion decision. This has not yet been resolved and both decisions are linked. Casius12 (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are linked. Please see Bank referral scheme, DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the relevant notability guideline for this finance company. The company has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are unrelated to the company. Sources cited in the article include a list of executives, a blog post by the company's CEO, and other articles that mention the company in a passing way — not as a subject of the article — or websites that are simply supportive of facts in the article (and not about the company itself). - tucoxn\^talk 19:00, 18 December 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 Hyponymy and hypernymy. And merge from history where needed. Sandstein 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella term

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a textbook, or a publisher of original thought. Covers two different subjects. It seems like the page was written by an amateur lexicographer attempting to instruct readers about these terms by referencing their own personal experience with the terms, a copyrighted dictionary, and one citation of a Chicago Tribune article in which a medical doctor happened to say that glaucoma is "a broad term for a number of different conditions that damage the optic nerve" a quote which someone thought was enough verification to include it on an otherwise uncited list. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word "umbrella term" has been useful on Wikipedia, and we can see sources in the links above using the term. But if there are no reliable sources, or barely any, discussing use of the term itself, deletion is probably best. We do have articles about terms, but we employ WP:WORDISSUBJECT for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, I do think that the page should point to the Wiktionary entry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the term is used quite a bit (Google Books claims 313000 results for "Umbrella term", with everything from "think tank" to "Asian American" to "learning disability" described as one), but I'm struggling to find anything other than a dictionary definition about the term. Not sure that specific examples would be the basis for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hypernym. According to this, this, this and this, it should probably redirect to hypernym. Looks like an unintentional WP:CSPLIT (content split) ie. two articles on the same topic. "Umbrella term" is a metaphor while hypernym the linguistic term. Hypernym is found in dictionaries like Oxford but umbrella term is not. -- GreenC 04:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which sets up a set of hurdles before proposing deletion; and an agenda for handling the question. Article can be improved. Sources exist. Content can be expanded. Useful subject and day-to-day concept. That article needs improvement is not a reason to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can recognize the desire to save articles at all cost because deletionists can be overzealous etc.. But in this case, how do you reconcile this article with hypernym? Two articles on the same exact topic. "Umbrella" is just a metaphorical alternative name for hypernym, a slang term for the same thing. What would this article contain that wouldn't belong in the other article? If there were sources that discussed the metaphor itself with society, not just using the metaphor but discussing the metaphor (not the meaning of the metaphor, the metaphor itself), I might agree. Can you provide those sources? Otherwise it's a parallel article to hypernym which goes against WP:CSPLIT (content split) --GreenC 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of hypernym when seeing this article nominated. I did think of "catch-all" (which was a Wikipedia article until recently), because I've seen "umbrella term" replaced with "catch-all" on Wikipedia before. If the article is redirected to the Hyponymy and hypernymy article, it should be mentioned and bolded somewhere in there so that editors know that they've arrived at the right article and so that there is an explanation about the term. MOS:BOLD and all that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes bold name at the top .. this is supported by reliable source see this, this, this and this (there are more) -- they directly assert "Umbrella term" and hypernym are the same. Not just merely giving similar definitions, but directly asserting the two terms are the same thing. -- GreenC 07:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The general concept appears in works such as Umbrella Reviews: Evidence Synthesis with Overviews of Reviews and Meta-Epidemiologic Studies; aming the Standards: A Commonsense Approach to Higher Student Achievement; Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers . Other sources such as this talk of Molar (broad) The mian point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete short articles but that we should group topics together conceptually, rather than by word and title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we should group topics together conceptually, rather than by word and title - agreed. See comments above. "Umbrella term" is a metaphor of the linguistic term hypernym for which we already have an in-depth article. Otherwise please explain why this article is not a content split (CSPLIT), what it contains that is not already in hypernym. -- GreenC 14:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or the like, but we nevertheless have a vast number of articles about terminology, and this one in particular is often used (quite a lot in academia too). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that we have a vast number of articles about terminology is irrelevant. So is how often the term is used. What matters is if there are sources that discuss the concept in depth. --Lambiam 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Wikipedia has a clear policy about WP:CSPLIT, this article is a copy of the same subject covered in hypernym. What would this article contain that is not already contained in hypernym? Umbrealla is a metaphor for hypernym. We don't create separate articles for the various metaphors of everything it makes no sense. -- GreenC 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to update the article and the sources. They are not synonymous, although arguably hypernym (a specialized term used mainly by linguists) fits under the [[umbrella term}} (a more generally used phrase). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources directly assert they are synonymous. There is no difference in the meaning. -- GreenC 19:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources, and they feature nuanced defintiions. And you haven't addressed the difference between a technically used term by a narrow population, and a popular term used more generally. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a 'nuanced definition' is probably saying the same thing in so many words. It's fine to have a separate article about a metaphor and the precise term. But you still have to demonstrate there are sources specific about the metaphor itself, otherwise it's a content split, the same topic in two articles. A POV split as well. -- GreenC 21:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Working on it. I've done the research, but I've got to add the content and references. Lots to coalesce. Real life intrudes, and it will be a couple of days. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, perhaps Mr. Guye did do a WP:Before job, but, like the rest of us, saw that the term was being used without the term/topic being defined. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hypernym. Both articles cover the same topic, and if all of the unsourced content were removed from Umbrella term there would be nothing useable left to merge. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy (which is the redirect target of Hypernym) per Dlthewave. The article contains a short description in the lead section, and the rest is a mostly unsourced list of examples. — Newslinger talk 10:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is not an article on its own, I too believe it's better redirect to Hyponymy and hypernymy Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 30 December 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. Lourdes 08:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Wadali

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

Doesn't seem to be notable enough to have a wiki article, lack of coverage on reliable recourses Shringhringshring (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 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 SNOW Merge and redirect to Civilization (board game), with no prejudice against creating a list article as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization (board game)

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

This disambiguation page is in violation of WP:INCOMPDAB. All entries can be listed at the parent disambiguation page, Civilization (disambiguation) without issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation). The dab page is tiny and this situation is not remotely complex enough to warrant needing a separate article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games per WP:INCDAB. This case is exactly analogous to the example there. We should also delete the anomalous redirect Civilization (board game) (disambiguation) which was created automatically when Rodw fixed some bad links. Certes (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games. This is textbook example of WP:INCDAB. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games: clear cut WP:INCDAB. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - pile-on !vote; based on the talk page discussion this probably shouldn't be SNOW closed until CapnZapp comments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion that hatnotes on the boardgames can point to Civilization (disambiguation)#Games, which serves the same purpose as this page. No content is deleted, it is simply merged per WP:INCDAB. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since this is the first attempt at bringing the matter up for discussion anywhere: I created the page because I needed a landing for the hat notes of the involved board game articles. Three different editors just wrecked that work with zero warning, zero discussion and zero feedback. It's not that I oppose the removal of this page per se, it's that none of the three efforts took the care to make everything work. Yes, all three efforts so far has created various messes, feel free to browse page histories! Since none of them have taken the time to engage, reverting with the edit comment "please discuss on talk" was the quick and painless way of ensuring a clean state without broken stuff. If anyone wondered why their edits were discarded, all they needed to do is ask. Nobody did - I just assume they all thought I was hung up about policy. I wasn't. That said, please do note that many of you seem to believe the INCDAB policy page mandates the deletion of this article. Read it again, and you'll see that DOUBLEDAB is not prohibited, and that policy does not clearly stipulate when doubledab is to be used or not. Maybe it should be saying that... but it really does not. Nevertheless, I do see where this AfD is going.

Comment, cont'd: Anyway, I applaud this, the first effort, to actually engage in discussion. If you must delete the page, feel free to do so, but please make sure you don't leave stuff hanging (from related article pages). Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone wants to put the content and wikilinks of related pages into a consistent state. The reason this didn't happen is that editors with different views were pulling in opposing directions, making edits which were each reasonable in isolation but conflicted when viewed as a group. Once we have a consensus on which way to go, we can soon get there together. Can we agree the best target for the hatnotes? I propose Civilization (disambiguation)#Games (which will automatically appear styled as Civilization (disambiguation) § Games) as that's the actual destination and will keep such links off the reports of ambiguous links to be fixed. Certes (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there even be hatnotes? "Civilization (2010 board game)" is not ambiguous. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full name of the game is "Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game", which redirects there (along with a few variants). That title specifically refers to just that game, although it is ambiguous enough to refer to most of the boardgames generally. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Most of the hatnotes can be removed per WP:NAMB. Advanced Civilization is the only ambiguous title; it currently has no hatnote and its alternative meaning isn't a board game. Civilization: The Boardgame redirects to Civilization (2002 board game) and Civilization: The Board Game redirects to Civilization (2010 board game). Those titles may justify {{redirect}} hatnotes, or we may even feel that (despite WP:SMALLDIFFS) those titles are ambiguous enough to retarget them directly to the dab section. Certes (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hat notes should certainly stay: The difference between Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game is a mere space; nuff said. And since we have three articles named Civilization (YY board game), it is easy to see how a reader got the wrong one and would be helped by links to the others. (Via a single link to disambiguation, of course; not by some incomplete listing right in the hat note). Then it's the matter of actually formatting the Civilization (board game) (disambiguation) article (or section if you must). Please see talk. (Sigh - I really wish people weren't so talk page averse...) Okay - here goes: In short, what to link - the real title or the Wikipedia article title? And it looks strange to have A New Dawn as the sole exception; very jarring. Please don't intermix board and video games in a single jumbled "Games" section. It becomes one long list of hypnotic "Civilization" entries with only slight variance in wording that are directly reader hostile. Did I miss one? I probably did. All in all, I suggest this process (the AfD) is put on hold or whatever while we have a proper holistic discussion on an actual goddamn talk page (anywhere but here - when the discussion closes, this space gets shut down with no further possibility to discuss), copying this stuff now that we finally have started talking. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This is getting into WP:SNOW territory. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If all of these are related, why not just move this to List of Civilization games and de-disambiguate altogether? bd2412 T 02:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly could be a list or set index. If so then I'd go for List of Civilization board games, to disambiguate from Civilization (series) which covers the video games. Certes (talk) 13:11, 11 December 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 11:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Hiles

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

Unreferenced BLP and unsuccessful political candidate, current two links were severely lacking and are now dead. Current article is an overt political candidate PROMO statement by a WP:SPA. While subject is an AM, the current article at least needs a complete rewrite and hence WP:TNT. WP:BEFORE shows the vast majority of coverage is routine political candidate election coverage and GNG is doubtful. Note a previous PROD declined without obvious reason. Aoziwe (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article to remove the out of date info and electioneering POV. Hiles has been a refugee advocate for many years before and after standing as a Greens candidate. I have updated one reference and added another source for her AM. I will look for and add more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:ANYBIO #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." She is a Member of the Order of Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly effectively TNTed the article, thanks. Re ANYBIO, okay after the TNTing but given that there has been at least one other !vote of delete the AfD cannot be withdrawn. Please note that some of your new references, at least most of what I can get access to, seem to be minor mentions and are perhaps leaning towards WP:REFBOMBING. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I was aware the references were piling up, and I may do some more work on it, either to add more info from the sources, or to prune them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being inducted into the Order of Australia is a valid notability claim, and RebeccaGreen has done a very creditable job of Heymanning the writing tone and referencing up to a much more keepable standard than they displayed at the time of nomination. Bravo. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if Member of the Order of Australia by itself alone is significant enough as an honour, but that honour together with sources having been improved on, and she may pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think with OBEs a CBE is deemed to be the significant level so with OAs its probably Officer? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the Canadian equivalent, the Order of Canada, there's no rank-based cutoff as to when it counts as a notability claim and when it doesn't — the OC itself is considered a valid notability claim regardless of rank, and the only inclusion test beyond that is the ability to cite the article to some actual evidence of reliable source coverage. That is, we'll still delete an article about an OC member in the (unlikely but not impossible) event that the Order of Canada citation is the only source we can find for them, but if we can find reasonable evidence of them having received reliable source coverage in media for the work they did to get the honour, then we accept it as a notability claim even at the "member" level. National honour programs don't all work in the exact same way, and don't have exactly the same levels or the same qualifications to get named to them, so there's no one-size-fits-all notability approach that applies the same way to all of them — each country's wikicontingent needs to establish its own consensus about how notability works in relation to their own national honour system. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the UK is concerned, I don't think an OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) is enough, for example, many in this list of people such as career diplomats don't really look notable to me - [11]. Same for those in the military (I'm not even sure of those in the military receiving a CBE). I can't state with great confidence whether this is the same with Australia, personally I would consider a superior honour to be notable. Hzh (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources here. The AM does not qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1, as has been established many, many times. (AO at least, but really AC.) Frickeg (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage of her doesn't really pass WP:GNG, there's a lot of synth and non-significant coverage in the article as it stands, with the only articles on her being the award and her candidacy. The candidacy articles don't really count, either. If the AM doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO, then she fails both the only possible SNG along with GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where are the guidelines on which level of national awards constitutes "a well-known and significant award or honor"? Frickeg says that it "has been established many, many times" that AM does not qualify; Bearcat says that "there's no rank-based cutoff" with the Order of Canada. If there are guidelines beyond WP:ANYBIO, I would very much appreciate knowing where they are. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every single time someone at AfD tries to say "the AM/OAM passes WP:ANYBIO!", it is established that no, actually, it really doesn't, since these awards are given to many many people, many of them worthy but not all of them notable. (In some cases, of course, the article is kept as it passes WP:GNG anyway.) There have been a few attempts at codifying this that have tended to founder, most recently here. Frickeg (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any formal policy document that spells it out, because it's dependent on context. I can confirm that for the Order of Canada, we definitely don't have any comprehensive attempts happening to rush-job every new OC member into Wikipedia the moment the new induction announcements come out — but when an article about an OC member does happen, we check for whether they can be shown to pass WP:GNG or not rather than just automatically accepting the OC announcement itself as the magic notability maker for a person who doesn't have any other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your replies. What I see at the Talk page you linked to, Frickeg, is that there is no agreed policy, and you said "This whole idea could use formalising because I for one am tired of having to argue that ANYBIO doesn't cover, say, the Medal of the Order of Australia or the Centenary Medal" - which suggests to me that other editors think that it does. And although my Keep vote was based on WP:ANYBIO, I have also provided other references, so it's up to others to decide if they are sufficient for WP:GNG. (I don't know why the candidacy article wouldn't count - News Corp, News.com.au's owner, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and is most definitely independent of the Greens.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider candidacy announcements routine reporting when evaluating GNG, especially so in Australia, where the candidates are rarely independent of the parties they are running for (IE, you tend to vote for the party more than the individual candidate because the candidates tend not to have leeway on making policy as individuals, conscience votes and all that - obviously there are exceptions.) Identifying these sources as routine ties in with our unelected candidates not being presumptively notable guideline. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sources out there which haven't been considered yet. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen and per avove. BurmeseGod (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:GNG. I'm not familiar enough with the context of some of these claims to have a strong opinion. Uninvited Company 21:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of Order of Australia, passes GNG. MurielMary (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AM is not an automatic marker of notability (at a quota of 340 awards per year it can hardly be considerd a "significant" award). Other coverage is routine or unreliable. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:17, 26 December 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.