Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Testspure (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 5 January 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Screen Savers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 4 January 6 January >

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 redirect to The Screen Savers. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Screen Savers

The New Screen Savers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub on a podcast that is Non notable and is no longer in production. Testspure (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope William-Smith

Hope William-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (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 based on a rough consensus, one apparently dissenting comment notwithstanding. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Termokiss

Termokiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined multiply endorsed PROD. Non-notable local community project. Polyamorph (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to have ten references from independent sources. Local community projects can be notable. This one gets substantial coverage from the United Nations Kosovo Team, and from sources outside the country, which seems to be both independent and significant. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2019 (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 with consensus that subject meets notability guidelines.. SouthernNights (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Om Thanvi

Om Thanvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable.  — fr ❄ 12:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have searched for sources for 15 minutes and all I have to show for all that is some trivial coverage for getting the Bihari Award, an award that does not seem to be notable. I have tried my best to locate sources detailing his appointment as senior editor at The Indian Express but have nothing to show for it except for a few personal profiles. All in all, I believe that this article should be redirected to The Indian Express if not deleted outright. — fr ❄ 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shivkarandholiya12, one mention, some coverage for a non-notable award in a reliable and un-reliable source does not make a man potable. Additionally, I have restored a portion of my nomination statement which got accidentally deleted while nominating. Regards. — fr ❄ 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly more than a mention. Bihari Puraskar is a notable award for which he also received significant coverage from Dainik Jagran.[4] What about this article by Rajasthan Patrika? The subject at least meets 1st point of WP:NAUTHOR which says "person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Thanvi is cited often by "peers and successors". You need to search in Google Books and you will find scholarly publications.[5] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree to disagree. Let's see what other people say.... — fr ❄ 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm going to do a source assess table for the six citations. The five bullet-pointed external links connote no notability whatsoever because they're all either self-published or unreliable blogs.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes It doesn't look affiliated. Unfamiliar with the publication. No WP:YELLOWPAGES database entry. ✘ No
Yes Bloomberg profiles sometimes require self-reporting. No I have a Bloomberg profile, pretty much anybody who has a stockholder portfolio does. Doesn't make them notable though. ✘ No
Yes No clear affiliation. Unfamiliar with the publication. It's just a press release that he's got a new job. It does focus on him but the significance is questionable. ? Unknown
Yes No clear affiliation. Unfamiliar with publication. Announcement of receipt of an award. Notability of the award is questionable, the prize is about $1,500 dollars but it's not a WP:CREATIVE automatic keep. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The same is true of the fifth and sixth sources in all regards as it is for the fourth source; they all cover his receipt of this award.
Overall, not a very compelling case of creative notability, so I'm leaning delete. SITH (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But references about the subject also exists outside a Wikipedia article, in fact more than what has been mentioned in the article. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a senior journalist/editor no one is doubting that. But Wikipedia's notability requirement are higher than that. As of now this subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Shivkarandholiya12, you can click and read the notability requirements and judge for yourself if the subject passes any of these. In my opinion he doesn't. The subject was an employee of patrika.com so articles from patrika.com or Rajasthan Patrika would not qualify as independent. The book [6] mentions the name of the subject in passing for providing Hindi news reference, it does not actually cite a literary work by this author. The Analysis of the source done by User:StraussInTheHouse is also correct. hindisamay.com is not a reliable media source but a college magazine. You can produce sources, here even if it is Hindi, but saying WP:SOURCESEXIST in Hindi, without actually producing them here is not enough to keep the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: thank you for that info, I always go for a question mark if I'm unfamiliar with the publication. Sometimes you can tell due to the layout and content of certain newspapers that they're unreliable but Google Translate plus unfamiliarity with a publication makes me err on the side of caution. If the source comes up in future, I'll note it's a magazine. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:StraussInTheHouse You are welcome, please feel free to ping me in future for any help in discussing Hindi sources. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Patrika is absolutely a reliable source since the said article was not written by the subject. You make deliberately nonsensical argument when you argue that Shivkarandholiya12 has not provided any sources, contrary to the fact that he has provided enough. Qualitist (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't comment on the user, rather focus on the content/sources. Regards. — fr ❄ 04:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not focusing on content with your comment though. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is unwarranted and out of context. What I have said just above is a rephrasing of one of the core policies on Wikipedia. Wishing you a prosperous new year. — fr ❄ 12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes It doesn't look affiliated. No College magazine No WP:YELLOWPAGES database entry. ✘ No
Yes Bloomberg profiles sometimes require self-reporting. No Anyone can have, does not pass significant coverage criteria ✘ No
Yes No clear affiliation. No not a notable publication. It's just a press release that he's got a new job. It does focus on him but the significance is questionable. ✘ No
No Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND not a major newspaper No WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation. about the subject getting Bihari award. Notability of the award is questionable, the prize is about $1,500 dollars but it's not a WP:CREATIVE automatic keep. ✘ No
No Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND Yes major newspaper No WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation about the subject getting Bihari award. ✘ No
No Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND Yes major newspaper No WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation about the subject getting Bihari award. ✘ No
No employee from 1980 - 89 and 2018- now. not during the publication of this report in 2017. Interview type article fails WP:PRIMARY Yes major newspaper No WP:SOAPBOX and interview type article that mentions the statement of the subject during the coverage of an informal discussion of a city Press club. ✘ No
Yes Yes No mentions the name of the subject in passing for providing Hindi news reference without elaborating on subject directly or in detail ✘ No
No Book review of a book written by Thanvi, the article on a book does not provide notability to author see WP:NOTINHERITED Yes No does not talk about the author but only on his book ✘ No
Yes Yes No makes 2 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating on subject directly or in detail ✘ No
Yes Yes No makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating. ✘ No
Yes Yes No makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating. ✘ No
Yes Yes No makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating on topic directly or in detail ✘ No
No Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND Yes No a single Paragraph article on award that has a total of 4 sentences on the subject Thanvi, fails WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
--DBigXrayᗙ 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray: I think I should at least get a chance to provide the correct overview of the sources:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Major news media WP:NOTROUTINE news announcement about the subject getting Bihari award. ? Unknown
Yes Yes major newspaper Yes WP:NOTROUTINE news announcement about the subject getting Bihari award. Gives extended biographical details about the biography of the person. Passes WP:GNG. ✔ Yes
Yes Clearly independent from the subject. Yes major newspaper Yes Significantly provides the statements of the subject. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Scholarly publisher Yes Meets WP:NAUTHOR. ✔ Yes
Yes Clearly independent from the subject. Yes Major news media Yes An independent review of his book Muanjodaro shows he easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Bihari Puraskar is a highly notable award. If you have problems with the notability of that award then nominate that article for deletion and it will end up snow keep.

In the above table, I added an additional source from Aaj Tak,[10] which is an independent review of his book. This shows he easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.

The person "is widely cited by peers or successors" per WP:NAUTHOR. Here are more sources from Google Books that fulfil this criteria very easily:-

There are many more examples of passing WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that a book review does not qualify as a source for the subject. Regards. — fr ❄ 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why #4 of WP:ARTIST says that review of the work by the subject also qualify as evidence of notability? Orientls (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orientls, welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read the policy that you linked just above. It talk about multiple independent periodical articles or reviews contributing to the notability of a person and never says anything of the sort one review of a book in any newspaper means that author is notable.. Regards. — fr ❄ 04:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In place of changing goalposts and welcoming more senior editors than you, you need to rather conceive that the book review is just another one of those many sources that easily confirmed the notability of this prominent writer. To discard a book review like nothing else exists, is misleading. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a senior editor on Wikipedia. I simply corrected what I thought was a extremely newbie like mistake made by the editor. Additionally, no goalposts have been changed, if you can prove that demonstrate that there is significant coverage of the journalist instead of making such comments, I will happily strike my nomination statement and effectively withdraw the AFD. Regards. — fr + 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This single paragraph short article [12] about the bihari award in India Today has a total of 4 sentences on the subject Thanvi. I would say this is far from what is called significant coverage, by the wikipedia community per WP:SIGCOV --DBigXrayᗙ 21:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Where is the link of "Press statement issued by KK Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2". You should refrain from falsification. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing NPA out of the window isn't a very good idea. Don't tell me that you claim that A statement issued by the selection committee....said.... and के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया (In a release issued today by KK Birla Foundation, it was said that [English translation]) is not a press statement. Regards. — fr + 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read again. Since that award comes from KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be released. To say that entire article is a "press statement" and "this also explains why all these sources were having exact same content" when content is not even same is indeed falsification of sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DBigXray:, I don't have an idea about what's going on between you, Qualitist, Shiv et al and who's to blame but this mess's getting disruptive. Your inter-personal disputes are now starting to swamp random discussions participated by either, with contrarian stands and if this spreads to more territories, I will ask for sanctions. ∯WBGconverse 10:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to link to one source twice. Additionally, a article which seems to be based on a press release, a review of a book and some routine coverage does not make a person pass WP:NAUTHOR. Regards. — fr + 10:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cited them otherwise you would ask that which sources makes sure that he pass the mentioned criterias. These 3 sources which you are obviously misrepresenting are not even the only online sources that have provided the satisfactory amount of coverage. See the above comment and mentions of his work in cited Google Books and familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and WP:NAUTHOR. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
D4iNa4, most of the sources provided are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the journalist for getting some prize (the notability of which is in dispute). Additionally, I don't believe that being mentioned briefly in 6 journals is being widely cited. Lastly, if in your opinion one review of a book in a newspaper in which Om Thanvi was a former employee counts as a independent source which is enough to prove a person notable then I believe its you who is out of touch with the current policies. Lastly, your assumption of bad faith on my part is noted. Regards.  — fr + 11:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe that being mentioned", this is not about what you believe but what policy says. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A quick research indicates the man was invited by the PM's office to be on the National Integration Council in 2005 as per this, he received the Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi award from the President of India as per (pic1), he received the Bihari Puraskar for 2014 from the Rajasthan Governor as per (pic2), he has been an invitee in literary festivals like Jaipur Literature Festival (ref1, ref2, ref3), Delhi literature fest (Hindu article refers him as notable), Ajmer literature festival (ref4, ref5), Patna literature festival (ref6); he represented writers in a delegation to the President as activist as per Hindustan times. He has been cited in numerous news paper artices related to matters (more on this soon). His book is also reviewed by many notable newspapers (more on this soon). For the two awards where I have shared references, a sitting President and Governor gave away these awards. If these awards werent significant would thse excellencies make time or lend their names? Let us please review these before we decide on his notability. Thanks Arunram (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arunram, thanks a lot for providing your comments along with relevent links. There is no doubt that Thanvi is a senior journalist. Here are my comments on your links.
  • His membership to 147 membered National Integration Council is not due to his prominence but him being a media person by virtue of his official post as Editor, Jansatta, an Indian newspaper. As were many other media persons, politicians and businessmen.
  • "Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Award" is given annually by Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Mass Communication [19] that year President was a chief guest at the event "Hindi Sevi Samman Yojana", in another year (see my link) Chief Minister of MP was chief guest.
  • Bihari Puraskar is awarded by a private body named "K K Birla foundation" and not by Rajasthan government. This award does not get coverage other than those based on the press statement from KK Birla foundation.
Thousands of organisations give millions of awards, and the award has to be highly notable if getting the award is the reason for approving the WP:NBIO. And the award does not get notable if the chief guest was a notable person see WP:NOTINHERITED
  • Jaipur Literature Festival draws approx 300 speakers [src: [20]. It is common for "editors of newspapers to get invited to these literary festivals.
  • He was a part of the 3 membered delegation that submitted a memorandum to the President as an activist[21] but it is not mention through which body or how they were selected to represent writers/painters etc. Just giving a memorandum to notable person does not by itself infer notability.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Little busy today, will respond to your comments tomorrow. If you look at all the data points holistically, it is evident the man is multi facted and of repute, invited in many forums and also quoted often. Frankly I suspect that he being an expert in Hindi and there would be greater coverage in vernacular media which is not my area of expertise. There is adequate systemic bias in coverage of such subjects in english media. Let us consider this too. I request all senior editors to please examine these aspects before we conclude on this Afd. There is ample coverage across independent topics and media sources to support his notability. More tomorrow. regards Arunram (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kachejian

Brian Kachejian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of an "award-winning" person but short on independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years.These contributions have been referenced in independent multiple newspaper articles that have been cited in the article.Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Than You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO, which apparently continues at Beneath an Autumn Moon. Puffery, multiple links to self-published site selling piano lessons, passing mentions of student awards, iTunes/Spotify/YouTube/DeepDiscount links as sources, one academic citation that supports the general claim that people moved to suburbs, all from a page creator with a username that matches the subject of the article but has no COI declared. Ticks every box for self-promotion against the interests and policy of the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had read the article first, then this long AfD comment and then returned to trawl through the refs looking for notability. Plenty of mentions, plenty of advertisments, several minor achievements but nothing close to notability. A search revealed nothing better. I am sure he is a perfectly competent musician, but that just isn't enough on Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brian Kachejian utilizes newspaper articles as sources.The multiple newspaper articles feature multiple full page stories on Brian Kachejian.These are full page stories not just mentions, that are not autobiographical but written from journalists as newspaper stories about the topic Brian Kachejian.These newspaper articles also contain interviews with other people in the music business about the work of the artist. Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years..Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited as proof of album existence.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Thank You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was supposed to be a forum where editors look at the sources provided in the article and decide if the article meets wikipedia guidelines or not.Instead the forum is being utilized to throw insults at me. Asking "And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton. Are you implying that because I am a musician I do not have the capability of excelling in the fields of academia? Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006? If so, than you did not read through the article which explains all of that. In the end, it does not matter because the insult is completely unwarranted and unprofessional.Calling my work puffery is also insulting. This was an article about a musician, a recording artist and an educator. A human being who has worked hard to contribute to society in a positive and professional manner through his skills as a composer,performer and an educator. Every sentence in the article is true and backed up with over 26 citations of secondary sources and primary sources.If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that. However, at least be professional about it. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton
Here, let me quote the text:
Winner of the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University, New York for the work entitled "Liberation of the Soul."
So, to repeat the question, how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"?
Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006?
I said no such thing nor could that be possibly read into what I wrote. But as long as you brought it up, it's an undergraduate student award given at a single university's undergraduate conference, received when you were 45. Using this to claim you are "award-winning" or that this demonstrates any form of notability is TEXTBOOK puffery.
Just about every sentence in the article is similarly inflated, and it's not worth the effort to detail even a fraction of it all.
If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that.
Yes, that's why you've been badgering the editors discussing this on this page. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page has been updated to further meet Wikipedia guidelines. Any issues that have been brought up in this forum have been professionally addressed on the page. Thank You Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines state that the creator of a webpage can look to improve the webpage proposed for deleted in order to defend its merits. When I notified this forum that changes were made to the Wikipedia page, one of the editors “Calton,” who has insulted me repeatedly went to the Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page and deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability. This has hurt my defense of the page and it seems criminal that a Wikipedia editor who is casting a vote as a judge would change a page that is being defended by its creator. I do not want to read any more insults thrown at me so this is my last view of this page. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability
Your "improvements" were nothing of the sort and demonstrated nothing about notability. Store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And to quote above, "May I reiterate that what is required is independent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful". --Calton | Talk 13:40, 12 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sandford McGlothin

Paul Sandford McGlothin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no real claim to notability apart from references to his own publications. Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (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 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Keller

Milana Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beyond the multiple issues in the template, this is really a GNG. I even tried using my rudimentary Russian skills to find things—which, in an ironic twist—led me to the Russian page where she’s also being proposed for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (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 based on sources added. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Lassalle

Rex Lassalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with only references to his own publications Rathfelder (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Anthony's Historical Dictionary of Trinidad and Tobago is the source I used to create the article, so no, Lasalle's work isn't the only ref used, just the only inline ref. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Anthony ref inline. Still needs cleanup. Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there's an entry in a national-level historical dictionary published by an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield, a notable publisher of scholarly works. There's discussion of Lassalle's role as a leader of the mutiny and the lead negotiator with the government in Meighoo's work (which is a scholarly work published by publisher of scholarly works) and in Brian Meeks' book, another work by an academic published by an academic publisher. There's a profile published in the leading national newspaper published 30 years after the mutiny, showing enduring national interest in Lassalle even though he has left the sphere of "revolutionary" entirely. And that's despite the fact that my access to sources is limited - I don't have access to a library with significant West Indian holdings, nor have I had time to spend much time on the topic. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: - I'm not sure what you mean. There's an entry in Anthony's historical dictionary that begins: "LASSALLE, Reginald Andrew [Rex] (1945-)". The entry is between LARA, Brian Charles and LAW. It isn't the longest entry in the book, but it's longer than many, including Brian Lara's entry. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's out of my page preview range but I'll take your word for it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's anything wrong with Anthony, but your subject was a company grade officer and is presumed non-notable. If the mutiny had succeeded, that would be a different story.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaarmyvet: - but isn't the subject of an entry in a national-level historical dictionary presumed to be notable? His military rank is totally incidental when experts have deemed someone important enough to warrant their own entry in a work like this. Guettarda (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the article to break it up into lead sentence, early life and career. The last three paragraphs are not relevant to his notability. It needs more information about his role in the mutiny, and in particular, if there was significant coverage of his role and him at the time or in later analyses, that needs to be included if he is to be shown to be notable. That is probably the only reason he would be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, unless his books have had multiple reviews in RS. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject is mentioned solely within the context of the mutiny by reliable sources. Any salvageable content about their role in the mutiny can be merged to Black Power Revolution. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have an entry in the one of the Rowman & Littlefield Historical Dictionary series and some significant coverage in a national newspaper, so I think GNG is sufficed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much improved. I think we should keep it. There will almost certainly be more sources in print. Rathfelder (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link in reference #9 (supposedly titled "Holistic practitioner Rex Lassalle promotes lifestyle changes: No quick fix to good health") doesn't match the actual reference. Instead it goes to an article, "Lassalle back home to make mind-body link", that cites Wikipedia, which is a violation of WP:CIRC. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. Well that's embarrassing! I had both windows open (the Kong Soo article and the Gordon "article") and pasted the wrong URL. I agree, using the Gordon article as a source would we classic citogenesis. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of the "national newspaper" references mentioned above, from the Guardian Trinidad, is a first-person account written by Raffique Shah, Lassalle's partner in their attempted mutiny (titled "Mutiny without the bounty"). Thus, that article is not considered a reliable source and should be moved to the External links section. Based on a lack of reliable third-party sources - this article is mostly hanging on content from the subject's own books - as well as the fact that the mutiny was unsuccessful and significant reliable sources cannot be found, this fails WP:GNG. It also does not pass WP:BASIC. It is instead an example of WP:BIO1E, and the one event is lacking significant coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article about the subject. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Changing !vote to Keep. Agree that with improved sources, the article now shows notability. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Guardian source I was referring to was not Shah's account of the mutiny; it was the Kong Soo article about Lassalle written decades later, showing that he's still seen as a noteworthy figure after all this time. And no, the article isn't mostly hanging on content from the subject's own books - it's based on Anthony's historical dictionary and scholarly books by two academics - Meighoo, a political scientist and Meeks, a social scientist. The only fact in the article based on Lassalle's own books are two sentences about his birth and early education. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Trinidad and Tobago Guardian is a reputable source. If they run an article by his associate that doesnt stop it being a reputable source, any more than the Washington Post relying on an interview with one of Trump's associates. Its the fact that they choose to run the story that demonstrates notability. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Black Power Revolution His participation in the failed revolution is all he's really notable for. Reporting in the T&T paper about his tour promoting his book (along with claims like he can tell a lot about people just by knowing their birthday) doesn't seem like much editorial oversight. His name is only mentioned twice in Anthony's Historical Dictionary (once when the mutineers were freed and once for the mutiny) which doesn't seem like significant coverage to me. Certainly it's not enough to show the GNG is met. His role in the mutiny is undeniable, but it seems more like WP:BLP1E. Sandals1 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sandals1: I hate to reply to everyone, but I'm confuse by what you mean by His name is only mentioned twice in Anthony's Historical Dictionary? I can find the following mentions of him: (1) A full entry entry under "LASSALLE, Reginald Andrew [Rex] (1945-)"; (2) Three mentions in the "MUTINY OF 1970" entry; (3) Two mentions in the "SHAH, Raffique (1946-)" entry. So I'm a bit confused by what you mean. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2019 (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 19:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Heather Whitbread and Michelle Savage

Murders of Heather Whitbread and Michelle Savage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but ultimately insignificant crime with no inherent notability or lasting consequences that falls afoul of the principle of Wikipedia not being a newspaper. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Ardell

Donald Ardell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP all the references are to his own publications Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found a claim that he helped spark the wellness movement.[22] It also has a few other things that could at a stretch be considered notable; Healthy America Fitness Leaders Award; member of the board of trustees of the National Wellness Institute for over a decade. I am not seeing any indication that these achievements are particularly notable however. Considering this I expected to see a bit more in reliable sources. There is an article in Acta Salus Vitae, which is an obscure czech journal (the article is only cited once according to google scholar) that has a two paragraph section [23] and a reasonable mention in [this https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-35061/11_miller_1_05.pdf] (looks like a German open access publication). Overall not terribly overwhealming for some of the claims made. What all of these have in common, along with a recent story in The Christian post,[24] are mentions to his book High Level Wellness. So I would ideally say to redirect it to the book, but we don't have an article on that and even a loose google search[25] goes to other peoples writings on the subject, so not even sure that is as notable as suggested. For completeness there are very breif mentions in relation to other "gurus" in the Sydney Morning Herald[26] and New York Times Magazine.[27] AIRcorn (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A possible merge (and the appropriate target for such) can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center

Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to New York Center, this fails WP:GNG due to lack of third-party WP:RS. The article is 100% sourced to internal FAA documents, ZHU's own web site, and airnav, which is just an automated compendium of directory-style information gleaned from FAA documents.

My own searching failed to find anything better. Low point for air traffic control looked at first like it might be a reasonable source, but it's written by two ZHU union reps, so hardly independent. The rest of what I found is all WP:PRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a List of Area Control Centers, but that's not a very useful list; most of the links just go to articles about the cities the ARTCC's are named after. There's also Area control center, which is currently a poorly-sourced article, but that's clearly a notable topic and should be improved and better sourced. I'm not sure what would be gained by listing every ARTCC there, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is best I think. Alternatively, it could be merged to List of Area Control Centers, i.e. some info from the Houston article could be used to develop its brief entry in the world-wide list-article. Also the world-wide list article should probably be moved to a more descriptive name such as List of air route traffic control centers as suggested above, and it obviously should be developed to cover the centers rather than merely link to city names, but that is not for AFD. However, I think it is okay for the Houston article to include the list of airports it serves, and that is too much to merge into the world-wide list-article, so "Keep" is best I think. It is okay for editors to split out the content from the world-wide list, and the content is sourced. I agree it is not a very exciting article though. --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note it would be perfectly fine for each separate airport article to mention and link to its corresponding area control center. Rather than repeating general info about each area control center (like the fact that "Houston Center is the 9th busiest ARTCC in the United States") in all of the separate 25 or so airport articles, it is best to have a short article about the control center.
P.P.S. Or think about it this way: It would be fine to create a 25 or so item category Category:Airports served by the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center, and then by wp:CLNT it would be fine to have a corresponding list article List of airports served by the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center. But we don't need to have a separate list-article, it can/should be a section in the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center. --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection as a viable search term, but the fictional food currently isn't mentioned in the Babylon 5 potential target article. czar 18:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo

AfDs for this article:
Spoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None-notable food from a TV show. Article should be redirected to the main Babylon 5 article. Jtrainor (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not convinced from the previous discussions that this article is notable. It may have been fulfilling notability criteria back when it was first created, but not in the modern day. "Keep" arguments that it was mentioned in several books but said books appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources rather than secondary ones. A clear example of something that belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Babylon 5 or one of the other articles relating to the television program. I can find no secondary sources so this fails WP:GNG. The article's sources are WP:PRIMARY. Geoff | Who, me? 23:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Babylon 5 given the above discussion. I do not believe there are enough secondary sources to support this article's notability, though it could still be a viable search term so a redirect may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2019 (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) 05:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Lee Pomeroy

Killing of Lee Pomeroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a fatal stabbing that occurred on a train in South East England on 4 January 2019. The incident has received some news coverage and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation. As horrific and tragic as this event is, Wikipedia is not the news. Sadly, deaths from stabbings are an all too frequent occurrence in the UK, and apart from the news coverage received by this one (largely I guess because of its circumstances), there is nothing at present to suggest this crime will have lasting notability. This is Paul (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the speedy delete criteria do you claim that this article meets? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try A7 – No indication of importance. This is Paul (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A7 applies to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event". This was not an organized event, see the note at A7. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind the person element of it, since if kept this article would no doubt eventually contain biographical information about the victim and the perpetrator, as other crime articles do. Let's instead try this one, and in particular point 5 that says: "Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant." There is no indication this incident has notability, and nothing in the article to suggest it will. If we don't have a speedy deletion criteria that covers these particular kinds of issues then sadly we are willfully lacking. This is Paul (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a crime, not a person. It has a small amount of biographical info about the victim, as many crime articles do, but that doesn't make it an article about a person. It's about an event, but not an organised one, hence it isn't eligible for A7. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you read the rest of my post, because the event still isn't notable, and notability is a criteria for speedy deletion. Anyway I'm guessing a speedy deletion won't happen, which was largely why I opened this debate. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion articles like this help nobody. They're created far too soon after the event, and they lack any substance because we simply don't know enough about the incident at this stage. It may be several months before we do. This is Paul (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. You are not alone in being confused about that, so you ought to read the criteria at WP:CSD. Notability is of course a point which can be discussed at AFD, but the criteria for CSD are not the same as the criteria for AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that does look a bit confusing, but as I don't often bring stuff to AFD I'm sure I can be excused. I'm tempted to say there's no credible claim of significance but maybe that's also a point of confusion for many. At present the article documents the incident and subsequent investigation, and doesn't suggest it will be covered beyond the usual news cycle. Anyway, I brought it to AFD, which is what I thought would need to be done, and we're having the discussion. This is Paul (talk) 13:47, Today (UTC+0)
As was pointed out above, the "no credible claim of significance" criterion (A7) applies only to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event", and A7 says specifically that it is "... a lower standard than notability". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes...not quite sure what I was doing there. As it's Sunday I'm probably not fully awake yet. Seriously though, I'm quite surprised we don't have criteria to cover something like this, as articles like this frequently appear, and we keep having these debates. This is Paul (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is too soon to post content on Wikipedia when it is not known of the level of notability of what happened or even the outcome of this tragic event. The majority of the article is a copy and paste of the relevant news pages, which makes this page unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which news articles are you claiming that this article copies & pastes from? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are far too many of these reactionary articles now appearing on this site that are - as someone else has noted - just rolling copy pastes from news articles. The death of Lee Pomeroy is a tragedy (and a day, I believe, before his 52nd birthday too) but the question that should be asked about all crime stories is - will this be notable in 12 months time? The sad answer will be no because between here and 5 January 2020 there will be a lot more tragic deaths. This article is just another variation of Missing white woman syndrome. A middle aged White Guy is killed so the middle class British media goes into a frenzy - contrast to two dozen black kids fatally stabbed in London. Barely gets a meurrrrgh! At best this is a two-line entry on the article about Clandon. It's not worth an article just because it's a slow news day.81.159.167.71 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: changed !vote to speedy delete per IAR. It's going to get deleted anyway per WP:NOTNEWS and there's no point putting users who are grieving through an extended discussion. SITH (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wasn't sure how best to respond to this. I guess WP:OTRS might be appropriate. Also a speedy delete by another user was reverted which is why I came here rather than restore it. Articles like this really don't help anyone. As you say we shouldn't put someone who's grieving through a prolonged discussion. But also what happened is the subject of a police investigation and there is a risk of people adding speculative information to this article. This is Paul (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My take is now irrelevant since everyone wants to post at the same time. Anyway, we all know this is a speedy delete right now.Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mere news story & whether or not Lauren is really a relative makes no difference. We don't delete an article because someone who says that they are connected to the article wants it deleted. Lauren's concerns are unfounded - the article isn't disrespectful, not does it interfere with the police investigation. Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VICTIM covers it and WP:A7 allows speedy deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Thought odd to see this had a page when reading current events. It is news (possibly important) but until there's more media coverage and a detail of significant impact, it doesn't warrant an article. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: I'd say we wait for about a week and see what the general result of the situation is before making any decisions on its notability. There's certainly less notable events that deserve having articles. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s only been 10 hours for God’s sake.... Trillfendi (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to prove my relation to Lee as there is a lot of journalism surrounding my family currently. Please delete this page not just because of the breach of wikipedia rules mentioned above, but because this is causing harm to the family who are grieving. It is hard enough seeing it on the news as a constant reminder, we do not need additional sources by unknown authors updating regularly on the event and his life as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Although I responded to Lauren's post on the article's talk page I had already come to the conclusion the article didn't meet our notability guidelines and that it should go to AFD. The article was created the day after the incident, and almost certainly at a time when much is still unknown about the case, and therefore it is impossible to establish notability. Consider that while a criminal investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings are still ongoing, the facts of the crime itself cannot be established. There are restrictions on what can be reported, and witnesses have no business relating what they know. Even at trial, the rules of evidence may mean that the full picture does not emerge in open court. In any case such as this one there will be a lot of interest and speculation, but at present there is nothing to suggest the ongoing investigation into this is anything but routine. This is Paul (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is pretty much a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, so there is no need to question Laurenb97x's status to determine that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't merely a news story. It's a notable killing, on board a passenger train, by a stranger. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances in themselves don't make this incident notable. If it were to lead to something like a change in practise on the railways, such as an increased security presence, or something like this case where the phasing out of a particular type of carriage was expedited because of the killing of a passenger, then it would become more notable than it is. This is Paul (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most notable murders in the UK receive little or no mainstream media coverage outside the UK. There's no interest about them in other countries, unless there's an international connection and/or it's a terrorist attack and/or a mass murder. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the "delete" opinions are nothing about this being deleted "just because someone has asked", so that is a straw man argument. They are also nothing to do with being "legally ok" or not. The reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEWS, and you have not refuted that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The article seems as valid as any other article on Wikipedia. Do you intend to delete everything? Rodolph (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These RS are British-only. The guideline you cite, WP:Notability, talks of sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and [...] not outside the scope of Wikipedia. Also, there are hundreds of thousands of intentional homicides worldwide each year. That is WP:Scope. This specific stabbing adds nothing to our knowledge of stabbings. Wakari07 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "delete" opinions expressed here are not based on notability, but on WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more narrow in your scope, reliable sources told me about a shooting victim found at a police station on the 11pm news last night. There is a reason why we have WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:1E - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the WP:NOTNEWS policy says that it's the creation of such articles that should stop. You are entitled to disagree with policy, but that is the consensus-agreed policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: you say Wikipedia is not into news... then ban updates of biographies when something happens or they die. Ban anything about anyone alive or something still going on! Rodolph (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not someone just giving the opinion that Wikipedia is not news, but established policy long agreed by consensus. Your claimed consequence of this policy is pretty obviously not a real consequence. I was encouraged by someone a short time ago to resume editing Wikipedia under my user id after a break of several years, on the basis that Wikipedia had grown up a bit since I last used my id, but it seems that that is not the case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodolph the death of, let us say, Stan Lee happens once in a lifetime and is obviously significant to the biography. Crimes, including murder/shootings etc., are routinely reported on by the media on a daily basis. If you cannot see the difference, a flaw in your understanding of notability guidelines may be to blame. Unless there is a significant lasting impact—which has not been demonstrated here—besides being sad and tragic, we have a NOTNEWS situation. If editors had the patience to wait until the incident established notability, instead of expecting us to ignore policies in hopes that it does some day, these AFDs could be drastically reduced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RAPID says the opposite of WP:NOTNEWS. With the former being a guideline, but the latter a policy, it's WP:NOTNEWS that should take precedence. This story is unfolding in the same way that dozens of other other news stories from the past week are unfolding: in a way that doesn't give any reason why an encyclopedia, that takes a long-term view of events, should be covering this story. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, NOTNEWS is regularly trumped by crimes that get WP:SIGCOV. Editors curious about how this works can take a look at the archive of Crime-related deletion discussions [28]. The question is NOT whether or not something is "news," the question is where to draw that line between ROUTINE news events (two teenagers get into a fight, and one pulls a knife,) and recent events that pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every day there are dozens of crimes that get significant coverage in multiple national news sources, and later when new news arises such as arrests, appeals for witnesses and trials. WP:NOTNEWS exists to keep this as an encyclopedia, rather than a commentary on running news. And WP:SIGCOV itself says that sources should be secondary sources, not primary sources such as news reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not something that was invented by Wikipedia. If you consult any introductory text on the study of history you will see that news reports are pretty much the archetypal primary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nebulous and undefined "media attention" argument does not hold water. Even as you typed your comment on 10 January 2019, Pomeroy's murder continued to receive international coverage dated 10 January 2019. I've updated the article with the latest coverage. Clearly WP:SUSTAINED is working against you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sustained means over a much longer time than a week. So it remains to be seen whether it works against me.Charles (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I don't start these discussions very often and I thought a bot would notify them. This is Paul (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for missing that local news story in the local Surrey media. Truth is there's always news coverage of a suspect's court appearances in such cases as this one, but that doesn't make the case itself notable. This is Paul (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be more news reports when this goes to court, but they will still be news reports, not secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: then should this article just be renamed 2019 Surrey train stabbing? Surely that was a notable event. The single killing really wasn't. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was one victim - in which case we often have a "murder/killing of" article. I am neutral on renaming here (depends also on the sources - if they highlight the train station - then yes). In any event - this is not a biography but rather an event article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (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 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adib Shishakly (activist)

Adib Shishakly (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG. Subject does appear to have any claim of notability in the Sphere of Syrian politics other than very trivial mentions here and there in not so reliable/notable media. Being somewhat related to a famous Syrian Politician and sharing his last name (and first) is not and should not be a factor in Wikipedia article-worthiness. Yabroq (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2019 (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. There is a consensus that the topic "Islam in South Asia" meets WP:N, and that the Islam in India article does not adequately cover this topic. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islam In South Asia

Islam In South Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly WP:CFORK from numerous articles. Such CFORKs are completely unnecessary to have here. None of the sources treat this subject as the primary or important subject contrary to WP:SIGCOV. Also see past consensus at Talk:Islam in South Asia#Redirect revert and Talk:Islam in South Asia#Requests for comment (an RfC) where consensus was clear that this article should not be created. Lorstaking (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Supporting Fowler&fowler's well-argued proposal. I would like to see all the countries of South Asia covered as per WP:WEIGHT as well as expatriate communities. India should have central prominence as dictated by history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG. Scholarship treats Islam in South Asia as a stand alone subject. I see that the article author has also made use of excellent academic sources which treat the Islam in South Asia subject independently:
    • Metcalf, Barbara D. (8 September 2009), Islam in South Asia in Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 1-4008-3138-5
    • Kugle, Scott A. (2004), "Islam in South Asia", in Richard C. Martin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World: M-Z, index, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 634–641, ISBN 978-0-02-865605-2
    • Robinson, Francis (4 November 2010), "South Asia to 1919", The New Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 5, The Islamic World in the Age of Western Dominance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–239, ISBN 978-1-316-17578-1 Code16 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about notability, but rather about duplication of content. Can you explain what this page will cover which is not covered in the Islam in India page (and Islam in Pakistan and Islam in Bangladesh as well)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that Islam in Southeast Asia has a number of significant differences from Islam elsewhere in the world. Because the academic sources cited in the article are about that specific topic, I would think that notability as a specific topic is sufficient. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete massively duplicates Islam in India. Clear WP:CFORK created contrary to the established consensus. Expand the main articles in place of developing duplicate articles. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or heavily condense Notability is not the question here (of course the topic is notable), but everything covered here is already treated at comparabble or greater detail in the more specialized articles linked above. This kind of duplication is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental, since changes to overlapping pages will desynchronize over time (that is one of the main reasons we try to avoid content duplication). A case could be made for a larger-scale hub page here that provides concise summaries of the regional pages but otherwise just links on. That would mean condensing it down substantially. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae, have you seen the arguments below about the inadequacy of Islam in India as the article where most of this information is covered? Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. By now this seems to have moved into more specialist arguments than I'm conversant with, some quite convincing, and I can't really consider this an informed !vote anymore. Striking for now; I suspect there are now better contributions in this discussion on which to base a conclusion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a precedent of articles covering Islam by region i.e. Islam in Europe, Islam in Central Asia and Islam in Southeast Asia despite also having articles on Islam in these regions' individual countries i.e. Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Islam in Tajikistan and Islam in Thailand etc. So content overlaps will be inevitable.
The political history of the Islam in India article is mainly empty[31]], so the claim of duplication is baseless.
Compare the difference between the sections on Mughal rule in both articles,[32][33], on its disintegration and the post-Mughal political history,[34][35] and the Delhi Sultanate[36][37]. Clearly, the new article is much better than the old one.
The rest of the Islam in India article is full of WP:OR and mainly low quality sources. However, this South Asia article is much better written and its bibliography shows the use and representation of high quality WP:RS.
It is also not suitable to write about Islamic facts & history of Pakistan and Bangladesh into the Islam in India article. For example it would be difficult to cover Richard Eaton's authoritative cross-South Asia scholarship on conversions in Punjab and Bengal (where most of the subcontinent's Muslims have always lived) in the Islam in India article because most Punjabi and Bengali Muslims today are no longer Indian, they are Pakistani and Bangladeshi. This article's section on Conversions solves this problem.
In short this South Asia article enables editors to write about the regional Islam (in all 3 nations together, both pre-1947 and post-1947). This is how several encyclopaedic articles in normal paper and online encyclopaedias already cover Islam in South Asia. i.e. [38] FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE is never a good argument in deletion discussions.
  • If the Islam in India article is poor in some respects, please by all means improve it. That is a not a reason to go and create a new article.
  • What is being called "South Asia" (barring Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) was called "India" till 1947. And, all its history will be necessarily covered in Islam in India article. This weakens your argument that this new article is needed to cover all 3 nations together. They are covered together till 1947. If you need such an article for post-1947, please provide sources cover the topic in such a manner. Also, please explain how South Asia is made of "3 nations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually WP:OSE reads "comparisons...may form part of a cogent argument" and also "In consideration of precedent ...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established...may provide extremely important insight...whether...article should be on Wikipedia." So yeah, WP:OSE can't be dismissed as an argument here.
  • I am glad you have accepted that the Islam in India article is in a shabby state. Since that is the case the question of "duplication" does not arise because there is no duplicated content to begin with. So please do not use the duplication argument any more.
  • Sorry, I should have said 7 nations, not the 3 main ones, which are still the scholars' focus. Scholarship has produced numerous works on Islam in South Asia (indeed academia around the world now even favours "South Asia" over "India" anyway[39]). To represent academia, we must allow for a regional coverage.
In short, everyone here agrees on the notability of the subject. Still, I would be interested to know how you plan to bypass all the academic material which covers Islam and its political history regionally? The only other argument against this article has been about duplication, but that issue has been shown to be non-existent with the content-free status of other articles. The end result is that we are left with no valid objection to this article's existence (nationalist objections based on "South Asia is India" are invalid reasons). FreeKashmiri (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CFORK It is ideal not to create articles that are already noted in other separate articles. No attempt has made to gain consensus as well. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not a concern here but if we actually need the article per WP:NOPAGE. A WP:CFORK such as this has should not be given any different treatment. Orientls (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm in the unusual position of disagreeing with Kautilya3: the entirety of south Asia has not been called "India" for very long, relative to the history examined in this article: Afghanistan, in particular, is crucial to the understanding of the history of Islam in the subcontinent, as that is where multiple Muslim invasions have come through, and that is a region that was part of multiple Islamic empires based in the subcontinent. As it stands, the page might well be a CFORK, but conceptually, it isn't. South Asia has nearly a quarter of the world's people, one third of the world's Muslims, and a history of Islam that is nearly 1300 years old; far older than any of the nation-states that constitute the region today. The broad sweep of this history is far better suited to a regional article than to Islam in India; indeed, because much of the history of Islam in south Asia has to do with territory that is divided between countries today, duplication will actually be reduced, and neutrality will be better served, if this material is covered in a framing article such as this one, and Islam in India is instead reframed to examine the history of Islam in independent India (as Islam in Pakistan does). Notability isn't really in question here. In sum; the article might be in bad shape now, but it actually allows for better framing of content than we currently have. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, your input is made up of multiple fallacies:
  • First of all, in CFORK-based AfD's, the content of the existing article is relevant. That content is clearly dealing with the Indian subcontinent, not the broader South Asia. There is a section on the Muslim conquest of Sindh, but no section on the Muslim conquest of Afghanisan. The After independence section covers India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, no other countries.
  • You make the point that Afghanistan is "crucial" to understanding the history of Islam in the subcontinent. Yet, the much-touted Metcalf (2009) volume that has been cited here, has 34 contributed articles, but not a single one of them on Afghanistan. On the contrary, the book says "For all these reasons, the Indian Subcontinent should be thought of, not as a periphery of Islam and Muslim life, but as a center. (p. xvii) The so-called Afghans themselves are called "Persianized Turks" in the volume (p. 6). So, the influences on Indian Islam appear to be Persian and Turkic, rather than Afghan. The Robinson (2010) article, despite being titled "South Asia to 1919", really covers the Indian subcontinent. There is a separate article on "Afghanistan to 1919".
  • You state that the history of Islam is nearly 1300 years old, far older than the modern nation-states. But throughout these 1300 years, the subcontinent was known in the entire Islamic literature as Hindustan and Al-Hind, the Persian and Arabic equivalents of "India". The term "India" itself is at least a 1000 years older than Islam, almost from the time of Alexander the Great. Why anybody should have a problem with an article called Islam in India is beyond me.
  • You claim that Islam in South Asia allows for better framing of the content. I don't see why. The Muslim political centres and the Muslim religious centres in South Asia have always been in modern day India, and continue to be so. The so-called denominations listed in the article, Deobandi, Barelvi, and Ahl-i-Hadith, were all founded in modern day India. So were the other modernist movements such as Ahmadiyya. This shunning of the "India" label seems to be an instance of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kautilya3, you know better than to suggest I'm doing this to eliminate labels, regardless of what the intent of others here may be. The question here is whether "Islam in India" is broad enough to cover everything that could fall under "Islam in South Asia"; and I still maintain that it isn't. The Metcalf volume you cite contains a number of references to Islam in the larger region, that would be covered by the latter title but not the former; religion in the Mughal empire is the best example. There's references to locations in Afghanistan as those of significance to the history of Islam in the subcontinent (including Samarqand, and Kabul). Most importantly, there's references to the Ghaznavid empire, whose atrocities are of course given prominence whenever the history of Islam in South Asia is discussed, but whose empire was based in Afghanistan, which by your own admission was never a part of the region known as India. So what if they are Turkic in origin? So were the Mughals (with some Mongol blood thrown in for good measure). I have a "problem" with "Islam in India" only in so far as the sources have a problem with it, and the sources are clearly referring to a larger region than has every been referred to as "India". Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a textbook case of content forking. Since "South Asia" has been referred to as "India" in both historical and pre-modern times, it just doesn't seem possible to write something different here than what already exists at the Islam in India article; and this is why the issue of duplication of content immediately comes to the fore. In any case content forking is not a solution. Bharatiya29 17:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence do you have to suggest that south Asia has been known as "India" in historical times? Or even in the period that this article discusses? Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the terms 'India' and 'South Asia' in the context of pre-1947 period are very often used as interchangeable terms by reliable sources (for starters, [40][41][42]) Studies concerning the region before 1947 refer Pakistan, Bangladesh, and sometimes Afghanistan as "India" when they are discussing about ancient to pre-modern times. This is why most of the Islam in South Asia can never be different than Islam in India. Bharatiya29 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, "India" (or translations thereof) have been used for the region of the subcontinent beyond the Indus river, from which the name is derived. The sources used here are explicitly examining a larger region. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change goalposts now that your original point stands refuted: You asked for evidence, which I provided to you in the form of reliable academic sources. The origin of a word does not necessarily define its meaning. Terms like "India" and "South Asia" have been often used as interchangeable terms whenever the pre-1947 period is specified, like the sources indicate, and that is the main reason why the article will largely remain same as Islam in India. Bharatiya29 14:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , good example of WP:CFORK. Such plagiarism should be dealt with in an exemplary manner always. Highly biased , defeating WP:NPOV. India is not Asia, and seems the timeline conveniently switches to highlight politically motivated dateline. Devopam (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "India is not Asia" Indeed it isn't. It isn't South Asia either. Which is a good argument to keep, not delete. Also, it isn't plagiarism to copy text within Wikipedia, when proper attribution is given. What evidence do you have that copyright was violated here? Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could not understand your interest in taking the pain to go after almost each comment above ? I don't subscribe to your ideas above for obvious reasons stated already. Devopam (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Islam in South Asia. This is a valid topic, but broader than Islam in India (the title of which is ambiguous as to whether it means pre-partition India, albeit even that is narrower than South Asia, or the current state of India). I realise this potentially duplicates the existing Islam in India article, but one solution is to make that article focused on post-1947, with only a brief overview of the pre-1947 history, and move detailed coverage of the pre-1947 history to this article. SJK (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear WP:CFORK. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep There are many reasons to disallow continued use of "India" to mean South Asia. (a) South Asia includes countries such as the Maldives, which have a majority (98%) Muslim population, or Sri Lanka, which have a minority Muslim population, which are not a part of the Indian subcontinent, but in which Islam had similar antecedents as the Indian subcontinent (b) Islam in South Asia includes discussion of the historical migrations from southern Asia of indentured labor that created Muslim minority populations in Mauritius, Trinidad, or Fiji, (c) Where does one put the Sufi orders, see Template:South Asian Muslim Saints, which played such a salient role in the establishment of Islam in South Asia? Where, for example, does one put Baha-ud-din Zakariya of Multan (12th century) or Lal Shahbaz Qalandar of Sind (13th century) whose spiritual dominion extended from present-day Afghanistan to present-day Bangladesh (see for example, Eaton's Islam and the Bengal Frontier? (d) In which pre-existing article does on include discussion of Islam in a disputed region such as Kashmir, which from the 13th century onward, has been a part of shifting political realms, which under the Mughals, or Durrani Afghan, extended to beyond Kabul and Qandahar? (e) the claim that "India" (in Greek or Latin) has stood for the "Indian subcontinent" much longer than there has been Islam in the region (7th century CE), does not hold, as the Hellenistic Greek or Byzantine notions of "India" referred to an indistinct land east of the Indus. It was a large part of southern Asia to be sure, but nowhere was there awareness of an Assam (with a sizeable present-day Muslim population) or of the then densely forested regions of Central India. In how many early Western-, or even Persian, notions of India was Balochistan included? There is good reason that the former Indology departments of major western universities have been renamed "South Asian studies" departments. It is best to trim the pre-existing articles to mainly post-1947 histories, and to put most of the pre-1947 histories in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Maldives and Sri Lanka are part of the Indian subcontinent. Vast majority of literature point to it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The OED (Third Edition September 2009 see here, subscription required, has this definition of the subcontinent: "Indian subcontinent n. the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh." It also has a footnote in tiny 6 pt font: "Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical." Clearly, we are not dealing with a geophysical description here. The main definition, in any case, does not include Sri Lanka, only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geopolitics in this region, the main bulk of it, started after 1947. This article is regarding a religion in a certain geography. Most follow an Indo-Islamic version, which is distinct from Middle Eastern version. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Allama Iqbal's Tarana-e-Milli (written 1910) or the Khilafat Movement (1920s) are notable pre-1947 counter-examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Serious? You used the guy who wrote Sare Jahan se Accha? And loved poetry about his Brahmin ancestry? His later life, should not be the main base of your argument. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Hindi before he left for higher studies in Europe in 1904. Tarana-e-Hindi, in vastly reduced form, in keeping with the relatively limited knowledge of Urdu in post-1947 India, has been renamed Sare Jahan se Achcha. Very few Indians know its second verse (Ghurbat meiN hoN agar ham ...) or for matter understand that Ghurbat, in this context, means "overseas," and not "poverty." Even fewer Indians know the last couplet (Iqbal koi mahram ... dard-e-nihaN hamara). It was a children's song in any case, written with other children's songs, such as "Parinde ki fariyad," which too outside of Urdu medium schools, no one knows in India. Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Milli in 1910 when he returned from Europe, and continued to advocate Pan-Islamicist views until his death. In the defensive ideology of modern India, only his youthful effort, all written before the age of 24, is mentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean move the article to Islam in South Asia. Of course, that is rather obvious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what Bharatiya29 means, and that's why they're quite wrong. A "no consensus" closure at AFD means an absence of consensus to remove the article. "No consensus" defaults to "keep": there would be no policy-based reason to redirect this. The page should be moved, as Kautilya3 says, in keeping with MOS; that's all. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I dislike the essay-style of it which obviously needs to be fixed, how is the largest religion in the world, in the largest subcontinent not notable? You all do realize that India is a country, not a synecdoche.Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the title Islam in South Asia, fixing the capitalization. While this article needs significant improvement, South Asia is a region where there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and where Islam has had a significant presence for hundreds of years before the modern nation-states in the area were created. The topic is significant and notable enough to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and move to lowercase) I'm not quite sure what this is a cfork from. It's an excellently written 'History of Islam in India' and 'History of Islam in Pakistan' but mostly before either of those were countries, and this does not overlap significantly with either of those articles. This does however need to be wikified, with links to it better integrated from related pages. Reywas92Talk 21:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Much needed article for the shared history and culture among groups that are separated in different states today. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While historical sources will obviously use now-archaic ways of referring to South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, India is most commonly used today to refer to the country of India. This is an appropriate title for the content, although it should be expanded to include all countries/regions that are included in South Asia, and moved to a title with the correct capitalization. signed, Rosguill talk 04:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has satisfy WP:GNG. Islam in South Asia is notable because of there are differences from other parts of world.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appears to pass WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:03, 7 January 2019 (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. There was a substantial expansion on 25 January, which somewhat calls into question earlier opinions. Sandstein 11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross of Honor

Southern Cross of Honor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite some effort I have had difficulty finding anything that indicates this is a notable award. It seems no more notable then any number of other minor and society awards given out by members. Nor can I find any meaningful coverage to indicate its awarding is considered news worthy. It seems less notable then the Silver Centennial Pin Award from Haddonfield Lions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, I have also struggled to find any reliable sources or significant coverage outside the United Daughters of the Confederacy site. It does not appear notable enough to have its own article. The section on the United Daughters of the Confederacy appears to be more appropriate for the limited information we have. Garuda28 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I have only ever heard of it in connection with the UDC (in fact I had never heard of it until I read about it on our article about the UDC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note the GAR medal does not have an article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if it did it looks like it would also meet WP:GNG. Out of curiosity I was just looking up the GAR medal, and its history is surprisingly interesting (the design was similar enough to the Medal of Honor to piss off quite a few MoH holders). PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of your sources is a blog, and being part of a museums collection means nothing, I could donate my collection to a museum. So we are left with a page about its value as an antique (again not really establish any real notability) and some stuff about the use of the emblem (not the medal) on tomb stones, thus this means (at best) merging with List of Confederate monuments and memorials or the UDC page (at best).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually two of them are blogs (Tri-City Herald and WaPo), but they are not personal blogs, and fall within the scope of WP:NEWSBLOG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all the useful information about the medal were brought into one place, the amount of text could easily fit into the larger article about the organization. According to WP:SUBARTICLE, I don't think this medal needed to be spun out into its own article. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Cross of Honor award originated on 13 October 1862 as an act of the Confederate Congress to recognize the courage, valor, and good conduct of officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the Confederate Army. Later, this award became the Cross of Military Service, which is awarded to men who, in addition to having a Confederate ancestor, served in the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, World War I, or World War II.
I'm pretty sure it is legit. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is not the same award as this one was established in 1899. This is an awarded given by the UDC, not the CSA. Your text may refer to Confederate Medal of Honor Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: It's the same metal. I'm not sure why there are two different dates. The early date certainly makes more sense if it is an award for valor issued during the war. The site I gave does mention the UDC at the top, so the award is definitely connected more to them more than the CSA. Perhaps because the UDC was formed long after the war, either (1) They issued the awards rather than the CSA (or in addition to)--a bit strange, but possible, since the CSA was disbanded (2) They formed a list of issued metals in the absence of the CSA records. This is all speculation on my part. Possibly a call to one of the libraries that has them would easily straighten out the date issue, or maybe some of the RS explains it better. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the same? It seems that the Confederate Medal of Honor was never issued, and long after some were minted. By an organisation linked to the UDC. Thus any confusion may be the result of that. Or it may be an attempt to claim false legitimacy by claiming to be something it is not (and evidence they are in fact the same award, other then the UDC's own claims?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is the same. [44] only mentions the Southern Cross of Honor. Nowhere does it say anything about the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award. I do not know why you bring up the Confederate Medal of Honor which is not mentioned in the article. We are only talking about the Southern Cross of Honor--the award created by the Confederacy and used by the UDC as mentioned in the article [45]. It's the same award. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this should be an argument for merge anyway, if they are the same why two separate articles?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article I talk about is just the one award the Southern Cross of Honor [46]. It is not two different awards. It does not mention the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award entirely, and not relevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This [[47]] makes it clear they are two separate medals.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reference talks about multiple different metals. But the only one that matters here is the one award, the Southern Cross of Honor. The WP:RS I provided, [48], clearly mentions it. It is the same metal that we have been discussing as to whether it has WP:RS, and it does indeed, [49] and the RS mentioned above and in the article. It was apparently established by the CSA in 1862 and issued by the UDC in 1899. It has nothing to do with the Confederate Medal of Honor that is related to the sons--not the daughters. Let's just focus on the RS for the Southern Cross of Honor and not worry about the Confederate Medal of Honor which is a different unrelated metal, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1862 act of the Confederate Congress simply authorized the issuance of unnamed decorations (medals and badges) for bravery. However, due to wartime exigencies, no medals were actually given out (except for the Davis Guard Medal, a special case). Instead, after a year had passed, the Army decided to create a Roll of Honor to recognize deserving officers and men (and one woman). After the war, the UDC created the Southern Cross of Honor which was given out to anyone who served honorably.
It is comparable to the Grand Army of the Republic Medal, issued by the fraternal organization the Grand Army of the Republic. Note that we don't have an article about the GAR Medal, even though it is arguably more prominent. Note further that the SCV also claims that their CMOH was authorized by the same 1862 law, even though they did not begin minting their medal until 1977. Since the text of the law was open ended, I suppose that any entity could start issuing medals and say they were authorized to do so. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the source you provided, "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950"[50], includes an introduction which you're quoting. The first part of that intro is copied verbatim from the UDC's website.[51] It's likely that the rest of the introduction is also sourced to the UDC. So I do not think it qualifies as an independent, secondary source.Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Mississippi Library archives: Giambrone, Jeff T. (2013). "Southern Cross of Honor Records at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History". The Primary Source. 32 (2). doi:10.18785/ps.3202.03. Retrieved June 23, 2018., which includes the entire article about the Southern Cross as a PDF.
  2. Library of Virginia: "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950 United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor, Records 43275". ead.lib.virginia.edu. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  3. Peterson, Bo. "Three iron crosses honoring Confederate veterans have been stolen from historic Sheldon church near Beaufort". Post and Courier. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  4. Library of Southern Florida: "United Daughters of the Confederacy Medal Collection, 1899-1968 | UCF Special Collections". ucfarchon.fcla.edu. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  5. Tucker, Spencer C. (2013-09-30). American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [6 volumes]: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851096824.
  6. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs Administration, National Cemetery. "Pre-World War I Era Headstones and Markers - National Cemetery Administration". www.cem.va.gov. Retrieved 2019-01-07.:
The inscription on the special style for Civil War Confederate is also limited. The Southern Cross of Honor is automatically inscribed at the top. The name is arched, followed by abbreviated military organization and dates of birth and death. No additional items can be inscribed. If a flat marker is desired for a Confederate soldier, the Southern Cross of Honor can be inscribed if requested... [includes picture]
7. "Code of Virginia". Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved 14 June 2016.:
§ 18.2-176. Unauthorized wearing or displaying on motor vehicles of any button, insignia or emblem of certain associations or societies or of Southern Cross of Honor.
* * *
(b) No person shall wear any Southern Cross of Honor when not entitled to do so by the regulations under which such Crosses of Honor are given.
8. Inscoe, John. The Civil War in Georgia. University of Georgia Press, 2011. p. 203. -- Page 203 is here
9. City of Grove, Oklahoma: [52]
10. James Madison University: [53]
11. Kentucky Historical Society: [54]
12. numerous items coming from this Washington University in St. Louis library search: [55]
I do not understand how you can vote that way, when notability has been established by these sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that library calalouge entries are RS for notability (especialy as they are donated collection). Nor is a law, it shows it exists, not that it is notable. Not (in fact) would the fact people are allowed to have it inscribed on crosses. In fact most of this look pretty trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true, but none of that is related to notability for Wikipedia purposes. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to keep though. It must satisfy WP:GNG, which it still does not appear to do. Garuda28 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. I've reviewed the sources in the article and none of them that are independent are about the medal specifically. They just mention its existence and perhaps list honorees. The best source listed above devotes only three short sentences to it.[56] Therefore, in my opinion, it does not meet WP:GNG. It would be more suitable as a section of the main UDC article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (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/WP:SNOW keep. Copyvio issue resolved, no question as to notability. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wilson (politician)

Matthew Wilson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Message copied from my user talk page

Continued discussion

Bakazaka, I'm all for keeping the content as long as it's verified pretty quickly, it's just that BLP requires any information which is likely to be challenged, and let's face it, he's a politician so everything is likely to be challenged, be removed or sourced. Definitely agree with you on the COI issue, I don't know if this meets UPE but a close connection tag should be placed on the article until we're sure it's neutral. SITH (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine

Saad Ibn Aqeel Shrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any historical notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources discuss its destruction, most (all?) only as a one line mention (if that). The coverage is wholly trivial (or non existent).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. Sources are not about the shrine but rather the simple reporting it was destroyed. All sources just copy the same AP photo without any description of the building itself - none even specifically attest to the article's use of "historic". Necrothesp's claim of this building being "cultural heritage" are not supported, rather than it being a routine mosque that ISIS didn't like. All sources group it with other destroyed buildings and none would be "significant coverage...directly and in detail" that GNG requires. Reywas92Talk 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is being said is that no one had produced one source disusing this site on its own merits, that until its destruction it was no more notable then [[57]], which also does not have an article that I am aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered by WP:SYSTEMIC. If this building was in North America or Western Europe nobody would seriously dream of deleting the article. You're surely not comparing an historic shrine which would be heritage listed by any country with a proper listing system with a glorified modern shed which wouldn't have a hope of being heritage listed anywhere? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, there is no evidence this is particularly notable. Here is another church I canon find an article for [[58]], and another [[59]]. I can find more in one English town that do not have articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that Wikipedia is a work in progress? Not having an article now does not preclude one being written in the future. Prittlewell Church is a Grade I-listed building, so quite clearly qualifies for an article under WP:GEOFEAT, even though one has not yet been written. St John's Southend is not listed and dates from the 1840s, so does not compare to these older buildings. Just being a church does not make a building notable (and I don't believe I said it did). Being an historic church does. Same for Islamic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, the fact is we do not, thus your argument that this is an example of systematic bias is in valid. its not. There is no evidence this would have been regarded as a notable religious building in this country.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge/Redirect. The most info here is from major news sites and weekly reports here. Other information was from an Islamic State video on YouTube,the video is deleted,so let’s just move this to the Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL page. I realised something too, all this discussion was because of my mistake of putting the word “historical”. Islameditor47 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I was rather misled in my earlier comment by the word "shrine", which to my British perspective conjured up an image of a statue with possibly a small chapel (or whatever the Islamic equivalent is) attached. I now see that this was a full-scale historic mosque, so should be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Phil Bridger:, @Necrothesp: This RS cultural heritage report [60] reports on this shrine "Site Date:Unknown, most likely modern." on page 54, with a couple more photos. There is simply no evidence that this is a "historic" mosque rather than a very routine one. The building itself has no notability, rather the destruction of it along with numerous other sites (this report, which lists a few dozen other demolished sites, is only an update for the week of March 2, 2015) is what is notable and is best covered in the Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL article. The shrine was not notable before its destruction, regardless of systemic bias, nor does it appear to be afterward either, with a lack of sources focusing on this building rather than many as cultural heritage collectively. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about whether or not it is genuinely old or not. As we have zero information about it (a two sentance stub on its destruction). So in fact it is no more notable then a glorified modern shed with a gold dome stuck on top.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the split viewpoint as regards Keep/Merge (with a suggestion of draftify) -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Move to Draft This article should be moved to draft so that the editor can improve it more. Deleting the page is just like erasing the editor's hard work.Islameditor47 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is mention of shrine, clearly!Islameditor47 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage is at least as significant as much as it is needed to keep a separate article. Excelse (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. While proving the non-existence of an event or an attribute is logically impossible, proving its existence should be trivially simple. (E.g. I cannot logically prove I have never been inside a cinema but I can prove I have, through, for example, a CCTV photo of me inside a cinema.) Editors who support Keeping the contested article claim "notability" and "coverage" but do not seem to be able to provide specifics. One can surmise that none exist. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Deleting this is deleting the editor's hard work. If this page is deleted I can move it to another page because I have copied the source text. Islameditor47 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have now voted for both Merge and Draftify (and redirect), which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for draft now, I won't vote again. Islameditor47 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2019 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Syrian Sunday School Association of the East

Orthodox Syrian Sunday School Association of the East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Gfosankar (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Path slopu Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY You will need to explain with sources why you believe it passes WP:NORG--DBigXrayᗙ 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:Can we keep the article if we remove the citations which is not independent?--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citations which is against the WP:ORGIND. There are another journals and books have details about this topic. I think, it had better that add the citations from it. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 05:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray, Buidhe, and Spiderone:Please see the new citations given by me from an independent publication which have information about this topic.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PATH SLOPU added four references to the same source, two pages in some sort of print source. I can't evaluate reliability and even if CORPDEPTH is met, we still need multiple independent sources for WP:NCORP. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:I added some more sources have details about the topic which is published by others in their books.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources which you cited are published by same church. Again it fails WP:RS. Gfosankar (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Path slopu I agree with @Buidhe:'s observation. Both the sources you added are from church. For example
  1. first was "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church MOSC Sabhavijnanakosham; meaning "The Fathers who led the Sabha(meeting) Encyclopedia of church corrected see below" . from enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11537283 indianchristianity.org"
  2. Vaideeka Sangham is from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Adoor Kadampanadu Diocese.
So clearly both are WP:SPS from same Church. If there are sources independent of the church then you can present them here at AfD. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 12:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:Sabhavijnanakosham(meaning:Encyclopedia of church) is Published by Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This work was not published by OSSAE. OSSAE is an independent movement regarding to church. Similarly OTS is an independent institution. So I think that is not WP:SPS. It is from the publication of a separate institution. I removed the citations from OSSAE website because of WP:ORGIND and WP:SPS. But the book is by another one's. They are not officially by church. So it is not self published. Also, I didn't cited any from Vaideeka Sangham. It is only a wing of that diocese. I think you may misunderstood from this website. It is a copy from this wikipedia article's older version. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 12:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Path slopu thanks for clarification, It would be best if you can present sources from Kerala or Indian newspapers, books, magazines such as The Hindu for example. That would really help the notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:Thank you for your advice. I will try for such citations. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 12:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FR30799386:I had placed the citations from different sources. I had removed some citations because of WP:SPS and WP:ORGIND. But this new citations are reliable for topic. Finding citations from journals, newspapers, etc are quite difficult. So I depended encyclopedias and books. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took the source as per the WP:PUBLISHED, WP:TERTIARY.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 14:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Path slopu If we are unable to find any independent source per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage and only coverage is found in the church literature then that in itself is a confirmation that the subject lacks notability in the WP:MAINSTREAM media. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:@FR30799386 and Buidhe:I have added some source from a reputed newspaper Malayala Manorama in Kerala and from a website not regarding to church. I think this satisfies the reliability and notability. Regards.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray, FR30799386, and Buidhe:I added the quotations of source in Malayalam in article's talk page. Please check--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Path slopu I reviewed both of your lines on the talk page, and that kind of coverage amounts to "passing mentions" and 1-2 line coverage, which is different from in-depth coverage that is needed for WP:SIGCOV. so I will continue with my Delete opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added new sources from newspapers like Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi. They are reliable sources. The publishers haven't any relations with the topic. The are independent. I think this satisfy WP:ORGIND. Regards.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (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. Lack of independent and significant coverage to show notability. RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Mobile (Pakistan)

United Mobile (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any notability beyond publicity and promotional items. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete that article, because if you check the oldest edit/archive (dating back to 2014-2016) of the article United Mobile, It contained information about the Pakistani company with the same name (now in United Mobile (Pakistan)), but was accused of being hijacked content that stayed there for over 3 years, and after when the hijacked content was linked with many wiki articles (eg. Voice Mobile), so a separate article entity was made for it. Please kindly revert this decision. Pakieditor - talk 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First read wp:n an article should only be kept if it can be shown the company is notable (I.E. people other then it have covered it in some depth. Secondly [[62]][ was the original United Mobile, I see no mention of Pakistan.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspect (given the history of United Mobile) that there may be issues with promotion and COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a one line mention.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no in depth coverage about the company therefore I !voted week keep, but it was indeed a leading mobile distributor of Pakistan. The Express Tribune also says the same about it. --Saqib (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It say "one of the leading mobile phone distributors"..Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two major and pioneering phone distributors in Pakistan, one being United Mobile and the other being Advance telecom. Pakieditor (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://nation.com.pk/01-Mar-2014/bank-alfalah-united-mobile-join-hands-for-consumers
https://tribune.com.pk/story/599137/united-mobile-launches-voice-smart-phones/
https://www.flare.pk/alcatel-appoints-united-mobile-official-distributor-pakistan/
It is the main subject in above links. It is also the only tecno mobile distributor in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorkamran (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for evaluation of the sources presented today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2019 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dopsy Flow

Dopsy Flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable musician lacking significant non trivial support. Extensive reseach online emphasises non-notability. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. The person is notable and made many works.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray:I saw some pages regarding this person in google and I think it passes WP:ARTIST. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 01:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (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. Obviously, this close does not preclude a possible meger/redirect after appropriate discussion on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PCVC Speech Dataset

PCVC Speech Dataset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dataset. The article is based entirely on the author's own publication and lacks any other independent expert sources that cover this specific dataset in sufficient detail (refs #3-5 are not about PCVC). A search for other secondary expert sources revealed no coverage at all. GermanJoe (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As anyone can see on Google scholar, Researchgate, Arxiv, and other scientific sources, This dataset is a notable dataset and accepted as an standard in one conference and one ISI journal. Also the dataset is downloadable for free to see weather it is fake or not. thank you.Sabemalek (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Moved the misplaced comment to bottom of talkpage (no change in content), please add new comments at the bottom (see also WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:TP). GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Scholar is a web search engine and source index, it doesn't convey any kind of "notability" - please see WP:GNG for Wikipedia's definition of the term as project-internal criterion. Neither do Arxiv and Researchgate, who simply host submitted content. The conference paper has been presented just in 2018, and there is zero evidence that other academics and expert publications have reviewed and discussed this dataset, let alone accepted is "as a standard". The mentioned journal simply republishes submitted conference papers and similar primary content (as noted on their description at [63]). Please provide independent secondary publications from other academics or experts, who discuss this dataset in some detail - not only your own initial publication. A last point: I never claimed that the dataset was "fake". It is not a notable encyclopedic topic, but that does not imply any judgement about its quality (a lot of non-notable publications are perfectly valid and accurate). GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any conference and such a journal with 1.1 impact factor, also in arxiv there is a judgment process which indicates weather a publication and a dataset is notable or not. this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations. If this article will be removed from Wikipedia it would be less opportunity to the research society to use this unique dataset. Also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset that was in Wikipedia for more than 9 months was nominated to be deleted that makes me wonder how it could be possible that such an article after 9 months of existence in Wikipedia nominated for deleting. Both of datasets just by one person (GermanJoe).Sabemalek (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:09, 19 January 2019 (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) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResetEra

ResetEra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from notes detailing that the site is an offshoot of NeoGAF, I don't see how this meets any of the Notibility guidelines such as WP:GNG. At least one of the references isn't valid (coming from their own official twitter account). Either a deletion or a redirect and information to be moved to the NeoGAF article would be more appropriate. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there are four independent sources, three of them of reasonable length, which amounts to significant coverage, and since the sources explicitly state that it is not the same forum as NeoGAF it would make sense to redirect the title there. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources do not discuss the subject in sufficient detail to constitute significant coverage. WP:WHYN explains that signifcant coverage is coverage that enables more than a few sentences to be written.--Pontificalibus 11:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctant delete. The article needs improvement. I agree with User:Jamesbuc about most of the content being about how it originated. This needs to change if it is to stay. I'm reluctant to fully endorse the delete because NeoGAF has a fully fleshed out article, and from current Alexa statistics, it appears to be tanking and much less popular than ResetEra. So, I think the underlying entity itself is more noteworthy than NeoGAF. I think, if we leave this article alone, in a year or two, it may develop enough content to stand on its own right. However, this vote is for the article as it stands today, hence my vote to delete. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 5 January 2019 (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) 13:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PayPerPost

AfDs for this article:
PayPerPost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Jehochman Talk 00:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • worked on existing citations — I've templated the citations in the article, including rescuing deadlinks using archive sites. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times. Does the nominator have a COI of working for rival companies ? Im asking due to the information on his userpage. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The test for notabilty is not "coverage in reliable sources". It is in-depth independent coverage with original analysis/opinion (at least 2 references). None of the references (including the LA Times) meets this test. The LA Times reference consists of a series of mentions-in-passing with information provided by the company or their "posties". HighKing++ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. No, but nice try at the ad homienem. There are thousands of tiny marketing agencies and websites like this one. None of them are notable. Getting a few mentions in the press doesn’t establish notability. Jehochman Talk 20:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 13:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gainer Donnelly LLP

Gainer Donnelly LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search of references suggests that this firm was not notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2019 (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) 13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geronco

Geronco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally PROD'd in 2008 just after creation, but de-PROD'd by creator immediately, so ineligible for any further PROD.

Non-notable surname. No sources located to substantiate any claim to notability. Not suitable as redirect as no article titles contain the name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:53, 5 January 2019 (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. There seems to be an agreement post relist that despite the fact the text needs a rework, subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Marston (character)

John Marston (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The character is not independently notable from Red Dead Redemption. Video game characters usually require some real world association (such as Pikachu, or Sonic), however this character only appears in one game series, so is not any more notable than any other character. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 5 January 2019 (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) 13:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gangstar (disambiguation)

Gangstar (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary disambiguation page. The main series page is already a disambiguation between the various titles in the series. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that Shelter Now meets WP:GNG per the sources Rajulbat included in the article. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter Now

Shelter Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The organization was mentioned in 4 different news articles for the same reason: some of its aid workers were captured by Taliban, and were rescued. Daiyusha (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree. The article exists on the German-language edition of Wikipedia. Articles pertaining to similar organizations exist on the English-language edition, e.g., YWAM, SIM (Christian organization). The article is useful for providing context to articles in this edition which contain references or should contain references to the subject organization, e.g.: Christianity in Afghanistan, Freedom of religion in Afghanistan, Heather Mercer, Dayna Curry, 2001 in Afghanistan, Prisoners of Hope, etc. The arrest of Shelter Now's aid workers was a point of tension and potential starting point for negotiations between the Taliban and U.S. administrations following 9/11 (88 Days to Kandahar, p. 92). "[I]ndication[s] of notability" can be supplemented without the need to delete the article.--Rajulbat (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rajulbat (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind, see new !vote.
  • Delete: let's examine the sources.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No WP:SPS No Reliable for basic info but independence and reliability are co-dependent when it comes to asserting notability. Yes ✘ No
No WP:SPS No See above. Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:ONEEVENT case. Nothing sustained. ✘ No
Yes Yes No See above. ✘ No
Yes Yes No See above. ✘ No
Yes Yes No See above. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Conclusion: WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied because most of the coverage in major media sources are about one event, namely the Taliban kidnapping. At the most, a section at Foreign hostages in Afghanistan would suffice. SITH (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Even granting for the sake of argument that your assessment is correct as to the current state of sourcing in the article, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the state of sourcing in an article." There exist sources touching on the subject organization not related to the 2001 kidnapping incident. This is a very new article, created today and within hours of its being proposed for deletion. I will attempt to gather additional supporting sources to prove their existence, and the presumed notability of the topic.--Rajulbat (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Rajulbat: please do, I'll amend my analysis if you ping me with enough time before the AfD closes and I agree with your assessment of the sources you add. SITH (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @StraussInTheHouse:. At the time of your analysis above, there were six sources. There are now thirty.--Rajulbat (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children with Cancer UK

Children with Cancer UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable nonprofit. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:ORGIND and GNG. HighKing++ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the sources given in the article are poor (Sun and Mirror should not be used), but the organisation is undoubtedly notable, and their activity is widely reported (fundraising, its funding into research, etc.). The number of sources on the fundraising efforts for the charity is huge [65], so I won't give them, here are some of the other articles on the various aspects of the charity (the work it funds, etc.) - [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either based on announcements, are mentions-in-passing, or are based on interviews with company officers. HighKing++ 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these are the work they funded, so perfectly valid information about the charity and not just passing mentions given that they are the one directly involved in such activity. They are also not routine announcements, nor simple interviews (this is one of most misused rationales - there is no blanket ban on interviews). There are also a lot more sources out there. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you think articles about organisations are going to come from if not for announcements? Its the fact that someone thinks they are notable enough to be published that matters.Rathfelder (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseIf it comes from announcements (in that the information comes from company sources), the source doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notabilty - see WP:NCORP especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Not a "blanket ban" on interviews per se - just Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 14:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the sources posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Media coverage of cats. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Purrington Post

The Purrington Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most claims for notability are mentions in lists of blogs by other blogs. Alleged awards are not major or significant and effectively badges given by individual peers without any coverage themselves. Therefore failing GNG and WEB. The mentioned books appear to be cross-marketing. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going into a review of other articles. Your example of Tuvalu Media Corp does not stand. This company is widely covered, including by reputable outlets such as the BBC and in scholarly articles. AFC discussions are about the nominated article and WP:OSE is in this case not valid. It may be used if a pattern amongst peers can be identified (e.g. a pattern of "keep" discussions that may establish some kind of threshold). As for the claims of notability, Romper mentions Purrington Post once and in passing. The Eva.ro article is along the same line. I cannot comment if this site is a blog or respected news site. The Google News link you provided gives 6 results: Romper and Eva (already discussed), two on the Japanese web portal Biglobe that are apparently translations of other articles and the Computer Bild article that talks about cat toys in general (no mention of PP whatsoever) and just seems to have plastered the article with cat picture tweets, one of which happens to be PP. Not sure about TCPalm. This is a "contributor" article. Those tend to be "bloggy" with questions about independence or reliability. Don't get me wrong: I had cats for most of my life. But looking at this beyond emotions, this does look a lot like "cat sphere" blogs without individual notability quoting each other and thus giving the impression of wider coverage. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Jake Brockman earlier post - One of them you're right about. Yes with Computer Bild, someone connected with the Purrington Post seems to have put in a post about cats. You're wrong about the books appearing to be cross-marketing. One relationship between the Purrington Post and with the book Petula, Circus Cat, it is mentioned by a major website (Austin Macauley Publishers). Another book, Strays: The True Story of a Lost Cat, a Homeless Man, and Their Journey Across America by Britt Collins - ISBN-10: 1501125621 has the comments by the Post in the praise section, alongside comments by * Library Journal, * The Conscious Cat, * Booklist, * Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, * Claire Bessant the CEO of International Cat Care, * Lead singer of The Pogues, Shane MacGowan, * Caroline Paul, and * Scott Carney etc.. Book got good reviews On Amazon too.
Now the latest post at 10:56, 30 December 2018 - I merely used the Tuvalu Media Corporation as an example of a noteworthy article that some users could nominate for deletion because of their unfamiliarity of Tuvalu and that it is a small country. When you commented at 10:56, 30 December 2018, there were 6 results of the Purrington Post. Now there are 8.
1. Business 2 Community, 28 Oct 2014 - 24 Cats More Likely To Vote On Election Day Than Most Americans
2. TCPalm, 20 Jan 2017 - Catty Comments: Cats have been popular White House pets
3. BIGLOBE, 15 Jul 2017 - 同じニャーでも意味が違うんだからおまえら覚えておくように。猫の11種の鳴き方とその意味、対処法
4. BIGLOBE, 20 Jul 2017 - ギリシャにある猫島。白と青の美しいコントラストの中で優雅に暮らす、サントリーニ島の猫たち
5. BIGLOBE, 26 Jul 2017 - 茶トラ猫についての9つのオモシロ豆知識
6. Eva.ro, 13 Sep 2017 - Tigrișorul de casă: Thor, pisica bengaleză care face senzație pe Instagram
7 Romper, 31 May 2018 - Do Cats Smile? Here's How To Tell Your Cat Is Happy, At Least On The Inside
8. COMPUTER BILD, 10.10.2018 - Kratzbaum, Trinkbrunnen & Co.: Katzenerstausstattung – alles für die Katz!

Now take away the 2 or 3 blogs from the article and it still stands!~ I only included them to give a bit more breadth to the article to show that in the world of the cat lover, cat culture, cat religion (if you like) what the site means to people out there in cat land. Not in an emotional kind of thing, but as a news source! Karl Twist (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion about the sources posted from others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - The Purrington Post like many other news sites comes up in its own searches. I have looked at some more books and The Purrington Post is referenced in, or has appeared in the publication as an endorser. A similar cat-news site, The Catnip Times also appears in Google News a fair bit. But The Purrington Post has more hits than the Catnip Times. Two weeks ago there were 7 hits in Google News. Now there are now 9 hits in Google news and I'd say in a few weeks there'll be more. There are some inaccuracies given here in supporting a deletion of this article. Again, what needs to be looked at is The Purrington's prominence in Cat news. When another cat-oriented film gets released in the US, I am confident that they'll be interviewing the film makers as they did with Aeris. As strange as it seems, believe it or not, "Cat Media" is here. It still stand by my statement that the subject here is notable!
    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin - I still stand by what I said about the article being notable and it should stay! It is a respected news source among the cat lover community and used as such for things that are very real to them. I just ask that if it gets to the point where deletion becomes a consideration, you might look at the possibility of redirecting it to Media coverage of cats or Cat lover culture.
    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. jps (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few sources, many of which are not independent or enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have pointed out, I'm just not seeing any sources that would really satisfy our notability requirements. Anything mentioned about it is pretty low-tier or non-independent sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and despite the admiration one may feel about the genuinely passionate effort that must have gone into the project. The suggestion by Karl Twist for a Redirect should be entertained. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2019 (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) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of the world

List of birds of the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per its talk page this is an article that is very long and has no reasonable hope at being usefully split or being transformed into something else beyond articles that currently exist, and it's not even a complete list despite its size. All possible splits such as by species groups and by continent are already made, so there doesn't seem to be much more use for this article remaining. Otherwise this article is arguably indiscriminate information and/or a scientific journal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meropidae, Videsh Ramsahai, and Owlsofeurope: Pinging some people who have put significant amounts of work into this list for their input.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons and also because there is no reason to maintain such a huge list when that job is already being done by HBW and the IUCN. The creation and maintenance of a "definitive" list of birds is a mighty task, and not one we ourselves do. Nor one we should do, as it would tread towards OR. Since we are using someone else's one here (and not even the one that Wikipedia uses as the basis for our articles) best to just let them do it, rather than mirror it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of birds is a good overview with much less required continual curation; this type of content is better aggregated through the category system and more refined lists by smaller taxonomic groups and places. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that this is long, but I wish to observe that this page was clearly an extremely ambitious but well-planned effort to create one encyclopaedic checklist of birds of the world, akin to the useful publications of HBW, Gruson or Howard & Moore. As such, the suggestion and tagging by the OP of splitting it into sub-pages would have caused it to fail utterly in its purpose, and one that I find misguided. One checklist, not lots of little bits in separate places are what actually makes a checklist useful! Sometimes big is beautiful. Equally, the rationales for deletion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTJOURNAL) are daft). First off, this is/was far from an indiscriminate list (whilst a little over-ambitious, it set out to be an encyclopaedic taxonomic checklist down to species level, which no other Wikipedia page on birds offers.) Such an encyclopaedic checklist falls outside all the descriptions given in WP:NOTJOURNAL, too. Were that rationale regarded as valid here, it could be used for all listings of a myriad of other taxonomic groups of animals or plants.
Lets be honest: the only reason to delete it is in full acceptance and recognition that better and more accessible resources exist online elsewhere, and that we here on Wikipedia will never be able to match those efforts in maintaining them. I could support that rationale. I found it extremely surprising that the already-mentioned List of birds offers no clear and obvious 'External Link' to any such free online resource, such as those maintained and available for download at the IOC World Bird List website, and no doubt elsewhere.
I don't care that this won't do my AfD stats any good, but purely in recognition of the incredible work done with genuinely encyclopaedic intent in the true spirit of Wikipedia by Owlsofeurope (453 edits), Meropidae and Videsh Ramsahai - and until such time as someone places a clearly visible link to download or freely view one or more definitive checklist of birds of the world on the List of birds page - I am going to make the futile gesture of !voting Keep. I respect their efforts, but as an afterthought I would strongly urge anyone with an interest in creating any taxonomic checklist or other species list in the future to only create them in sortable table format because, errm, they're sortable and much more useful to readers when content can be accessed in multiple ways. So much effort has been wasted in the past by list creators failing to recognise this, thus rendering their efforts far less useful or accessible than it could have been. But in this case I do recognise that better maintained and resourced definitive checklists do appear to exist off-wiki; lets at least make those checklists more easily findable from within Wikipedia and ensure that every one has a lead which explains which taxonomic arrangement they're following. And, please, let's get our rationale for deletion better thought through before we rush to remove really great content like this one could have been. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can put the content on a user page if you would like. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest back, if the purpose of this page is to create one encyclopaedic checklist of birds of the world, akin to the useful publications of HBW, Gruson or Howard & Moore. then my delete vote is Strong delete. We are not a taxonomic authority. We are not an ornithological society. We do not have the authority to make the kind of decisions about what constitutes a species or not, or where it sits in the list. This list is not, however, attempting to do that, it defers the IUCN. It's never going to rank with the great lists because its a mirror. That is no criticism of the work done, but I fear it was one in vain. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would on reflection be awesome to have a crowd-maintained wiki bird checklist, maintained and deliberated on by consensus. Unfortunately it doesn't belong on this site. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: In case there's any misunderstanding, I was, and am, actually in complete agreement with you and others here, and in reality I do side with those who move to delete it. The task of maintaining a definitive checklist is clearly not practicable here, though we do need to do better at sending users to external checklist resources that are freely downloadable and properly maintained by experts. My admittedly futile 'keep' !vote was purely to reflect my respect and admiration for those editors who tried hard to make a go of it over two years, against the odds. I have never felt the need to !vote in such a way before, and probabky won't again. To my mind, it was a far more worthy aspiration than compiling petty lists of Pokemon characters, and the like. I have no need to have the list on my userpage; maybe Meropidae might wish to comment on that helpful suggestion. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Maybe there's a place for a list similar to this which would only include scientific name, authority and common names. It could be restricted to species. That would at least be shorter. One could search it to find a name, or it could be useful for searching to see how many times Linnaeus was an authority in birds or how many times nobilis is used as a specific name, but even that is unworkable. Scientific names have many synonyms and common names are not standardized. Maintaining such a list would require a concentrated effort.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Music West Records. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Nash

AfDs for this article:
Kenneth Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources and WP:MUSIC (nothing on charting, tours, albums, awards). The sources in the article are AllMusic listing and a passing one sentence mention. In my WP:BEFORE search I found this, which is not a WP:SIGCOV source. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with merge @Jovanmilic97: I mean that keep the content by merging the article with Music West Records. Because Kenneth Nash worked for it. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy O'Rahilly

Nancy O'Rahilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's are little bits and pieces about her,[82][83] but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Her husband, The O'Rahilly is notable, not her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteKeep - High ranking committee members of Cumann na mBan don't seem automatically encyclopedic. I could be convinced otherwise, but I didn't find much more than what is already presented to that effect. Outside of that, mention of her seems more focused on her husband. That role is encyclopedic and is mentioned on her husband's page. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote, see below. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the subject of this article was a founder of Ireland’s first political organisation for women and was at the forefront of women’s political activity for a number of years during the critical period in which Ireland gained independence. The article is very thin on her political activities so may give the impression that she was not very important. The article needs more work but it’s really not a good candidate for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me more that she was a founding member. I don't see any information about the organization that led to the first meeting. Also, I don't see in the sources that she was elected to its founding committee or that she became vice-president (or when). I would put more weight on the encyclopedic nature of the subject if either/both of those elections were discussed in sources. Also, the paragraph in the article: "They lived in New York until 1909, returned to Ireland near sisters Nell and Anna Humphreys. Rahilly assisted on Sinn Fein Daily newspapers. They joined Gaelic League and learnt to speak fluent gaelic. In November 1911, Nannie Maolmire (Myles). O'Rahilly contributed to Irish Freedom, editor of An Claidheanih Soluis, the Gaelic League paper, including the article The North Began that inspired volunteers in November 1913." I think uses O'Rahilly to refer to her husband, The O'Rahilly, but naively read seems to be referring to her. If it is referring to her husband, could it be made more clear? Was she an editor of newspapers, etc? Also, the paragraph seems to attribute "The North Began" to him/them - when it was written by Eoin MacNeill.
If the subject is encyclopedic, and I do hope she is, could you (or someone familiar with the period) make that a bit clearer in the content and citations? Smmurphy(Talk) 02:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I've now added the following references
  • Nic Dhaibheid, C. (2016). "'Schooling the National Orphans': the Education of the Children of the Easter Rising Leaders" (PDF). Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth. 9 (2). doi:10.1353/hcy.2016.0027. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • "WBTM-18 Madame O'Rahilly". dublincity.ie. Dublin City Council. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • "Papers of the O'Rahilly" (PDF). ucd.ie. University College Dublin. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • "Statement by witness Miss Aine O'Rahilly" (PDF). bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie. Bureau of Military History. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • "Cumann na mBan leaflets and circulars, 1917". catalogue.nli.ie. National Library of Ireland. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • Joseph McKenna (2017-06-09). Voices from the Easter Rising: Firsthand Accounts of Ireland’s 1916 Rebellion. McFarland. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-1-4766-2916-2.
  • Ann Matthews (2010). Renegades: Irish Republican Women 1900-1922. Mercier Press Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85635-684-8.
  • "Sean Nunan to Michael Collins (Dublin)". difp.ie. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade/National Archives of Ireland/Royal Irish Academy. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • "Domiciliary Searches". Hansard. House of Commons. Retrieved 14 January 2019.

Are we there yet? Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the sources match the statements, but looking through the sources, for instance, I do find that she was elected vice-president in 1915 and was re-elected until resigning in 1922. Her activities during that period were often quite important. I think the page is somewhat misleading still, but I agree that she is encyclopedic. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that’s all I was trying to establish. The article is not well written and still needs more work but in the space of an hour or so I was able to find multiple reliable sources showing that she was notable.Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the usual challenges of attitude and time, I think there is enough evidence to justify an article. And having reviewed and rated thousands of WP Ireland articles, and noting that the approach for Ireland is pretty inclusive, at least for some sectors of society, the subject here seems more notable than very large numbers of others we do have already. I also agree, mind you, that the article needs work. SeoR (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As with similar notes from other contributors, while the article does need work (to bulk up the refs, temper the "by association" content, and generally improve readability/etc), I am seeing enough reliable refs to establish independent notability. Guliolopez (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The additional time I gave for this discussion has only resulted in indication that the sources claimed to show GNG are actually merely routine. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok City F.C.

Bangkok City F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim or evidence of notability, nor of meeting the standards of WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 16:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why Pualand F.C. articles pass ? This teams don't appeared in national public news but join in 2018 Thai FA Cup. This teams has wiki articles !!!!!!! It doesn't make sent and fail Ameteur club standard which can or cannot wiki articles. Thailand Amateur League started after Thai FA Cup. I don't know each team which join or don't join Thailand Amateur League. I think to changes WP:FOOTYN defination teams which has wiki articles to must play in national level of the league structure. It prevents to create teams don't join Thailand Amateur League and more. Teams in Thailand Amateur League which have wiki articles must appeared team history in National public news. Aquaelfin (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't true if you fix national cups to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. You see teams which isn't Amateur teams in national leagues but this teams have wiki articles ? Why do you fix Amateur teams in national leagues to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles ? For Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard. I introduce see history teams of Amateur teams in national leagues to get standard. If you choose any way to Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard, I don't problem. I would like to fix Amateur teams in national leagues to base for determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles.
such as *England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 (level 10), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. I accept this example.
for *Thailand: Clubs that don't play or haven't played T1 to T5 generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Aquaelfin (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the keep votes here actually, provide evidence of notability, but there is no strong consensus. More time should be given to expand on @Paul 012: comments, namely why is the coverage significant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Club have history of clubs national scoop and catching up with the national news feed. Do Fenix down know Thailand national news ? Aquaelfin (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2019(UTC)
Aquaelfin, is your English really so bad that you don't understand when someone's given you another week to make your case? Cabayi (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi I think you don't understand my interpretive meaning. I explain Paul_012 significant for this article. I think his use same defination but you think its doesn't true.
For you, A lot of news are draw or results of Thai FA Cup only. don't have clubs webpage. don't have history of clubs. don't have any national news report clubs to scoop. while some T5-club only has played in T5 but have clubs webpage, history of clubs scoop, catching up with the national news feed. Do you think what team have wiki article ?
For Wiki football moderator such as Cabayi, Many Wiki football moderator have good english language but don't have football league knowledge Aquaelfin (talk) 4:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment translating the sources show there's at least some claim of notability here. Two of them discuss a partnership with South Korea and the other discusses a youth tournament the club puts on. I just don't know if they're enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2019 (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) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-Oh! (film)

Uh-Oh! (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Protestantism in Portugal. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping the article. However, consensus is less than clear about what to do with it. In such cases I generally go with the least prejudicial alternative per ATD (absent a compelling argument against it). In this case that appears to be a merge. If the merge is not completed within 1 week of this close any editor may redirect the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Presbyterian Church in Portugal

Christian Presbyterian Church in Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Portuguese church without reliable sources. —Pórokhov Порох 04:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All denominations are notable? —Pórokhov Порох 19:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 08:30, 5 January 2019 (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 Nela Ticket. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malvika Sharma

Malvika Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, most coverages are interviews, two or three miniscule articles regarding her impending debut, no independent in depth coverage....  — fr ❄ 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I find enough sources to say that she meets WP:GNG. She appears to have been well-known as a model and in ads before appearing in this film, so there is more coverage that one might expect of her film debut - 'Malvika Sharma to debut with Teja’s film', New Indian Express [84]; 'Malvika Sharma roped in?', Deccan Chronicle [85]; 'New girl on the block!' Deccan Chronicle [86]; 'Actress Malvika Sharma injured in a road accident, shooting postponed', Times of India [87]. However, this article is clearly not ready for mainspace. It was only created today, so Draftify until it is more substantial. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, the subject does seem to meet WP:GNG on paper, however, the sources you mentioned (which I also came across) are mere one paragraphs which mention in a very gossipy tone the she has been chosen to play a part in some film. Deccan Chronicle here even goes on to speculates that "Her audition for Nela Ticket could not have been easy, as she was given Telugu dialogues to read". All in all, I believe the sources cannot be considered significant in-depth coverage due to their poor quality of reportage which almost transcends into typical hyperbolic speculation. Additionally, it fails WP:NACTOR by a mile. Regards. — fr ❄ 17:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 08:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with a redirect if that's what consensus is. — fr + 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am torn here because the article seems like a true WP:TNT candidate in it's state to Delete, really. A Redirect to Nela Ticket seems like an optimal thing since she is mentioned there in a sentence at least and could serve as a recreation in the future if she becomes more notable. But I would endorse the admin's decision to altogether Delete the article and then redirect it, as of right now the content is useless to keep in any shape or form. Anyway...she fails WP:NACTOR for lack of multiple significant roles in notable movies or series (only one in Nela Ticket), WP:GNG as well since there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. And no, I am not convinced by RebeccaGreen like with others, because that is all either WP:ROUTINE (she got the role), passing mentions or tabloid puffery. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (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 16:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Action

Amy Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have done several searches to see if I could find any significant independent coverage in reliable sources, bu I have no found anything. Sources in the article only help establish existence, not notability MPJ-DK (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found coverage of the subject as well, under 2 stage names - AC Jazz, Amy "Action" Crawford, and Kombat Karl. The subject has had significant media coverage and a noteworthy female professional wrestling career in the U.S. and as one of the first women to wrestle in the men's division in Australia. Meets WP:GNG and easily passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Amy Action and AC Jazz are not the same person - all sources on "Amy Action" state that she's a wrestler and born in Australia, "AC Jazz" souces states that he was born in the US and a cheerleader/Nitro girl. Apparently in 1998 she was both a dancer in the US and a very talented wrestler in Australia based on the sources. They are not the same person, they may share the same birth name but that's it as far as I can tell. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the rest since it's a BLP we cannot have wrong info in there. It removed your additions, so please double check that you really think it has notabilty without the sources for a different person. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject holds four women's championship wrestling titles, the totality of which meet guidelines for notability, added to one of the first women to wrestle in the men's divisions in Australia, all of which are sourced. The subject passes WP:GNG, and my !vote remains Keep. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the number of championships as an accomplishment. Of course there is not a guideline count for notability - which is quite a leap you made from what I stated when I merely pointed out here on the AfD page that the subject had won more than one championship title. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the leap from this comment - the totality of which meet guidelines for notability - to my question" you mention "Totality of which" = "Number" and "meet guidelines for notability", leading to my question what that number is. I don't see a leap, sorry, not trying to be an ass, I am genuinely trying to find something that would allow us to keep this, I just don't personally see enough Significant Third party coverage in reliable sources to prove it. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two sources listed that could be said to meet the RS guideline, the newspaper articles, one she's mentioned as an aside almost (not significant coverage) and the second is part interview, part coverage. Honestly if there was some other third party coverage, even if it was not that significant I would flip my vote to keep as an argument can be made for WP:GNG then. Unfortunately I have not found that myself, maybe you or someone else can. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Four titles and only one is actually sourced, but more importantly none of the titles are notable. I removed a source that was unreliable according to the source list at WP:PW. No sign of any major show appearances and the SMH link is wrong as Sherrie Sinatra was active in Melbourne at the time with Amy travelling to Melbourne to wrestle her. I think Princess Tara was active as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 08:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The titles she's won don't really matter since pro wrestlers fall under the notability standards for entertainers and not athletes, but it does seem like they're minor. I don't think the coverage is enough to meet the GNG and I see no evidence that WP:ENTERTAINER is met.Sandals1 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2019 (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 Segunda División B. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Segunda División B Groups 1–4

Segunda División B Groups 1–4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is unupdated and unuseful as its information is all shown at the main Segunda División B article, more detailed in the current season's one. Asturkian (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as stated by nom, general info can be found in the main article, stats in each season article, so no need for this in addition. Crowsus (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Merge Keep the content of article by merging with Segunda División B.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:16, 6 January 2019 (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) 13:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dzvenkgau

Dzvenkgau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search shows individuals with this name but nothing to support the history of the family set out in this article. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sarvam Thaala Mayam. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvam Thaala Mayam (soundtrack)

Sarvam Thaala Mayam (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film soundtrack that doesn't have any notability beyond the film. No awards, just the usual reviews tied to it being the film soundtrack. Should be merged back to main film article. Ravensfire (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Keep the article by merging with Sarvam Thaala Mayam--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2019 (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) 13:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra Network

Hydra Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company fails WP:NCORP. Searched for "Hydra Network" returned no significant coverage, only some brief mentions. Searches for "Hydra Group" returned some results about a direct lender, but not the company that is the subject of the article. CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article about an online advertising company, sourced to routine announcements, inclusion in fastest-growing lists and non-notable awards which are all insufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria. Nor are searches on the names of the company and its former product lines finding better. The company was acquired in 2010 by a company on which there is no article (and whose own site no longer exists) so there is no redirect target. AllyD (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (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) 13:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahllam (Iranian singer)

Ahllam (Iranian singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just TOO SOON for her to have a stand alone article here in Wikipedia. Although, some trivial mentions are found, there's no in depth coverage in reliable sources. Not to be confused with Ahlam (singer). Mhhossein talk 11:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please review #9, #10, #11 and #12 of WP:MUSICBIO. None of what you quoted are "a major music competition", "a work of media that is notable" or "major radio or music television network". --Mhhossein talk 18:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to prove it's a major TV network. I think you were not serious when you described PMC as a "nationally major music television network". Iran does not have national music TV network, as far as I'm concerned, and if it has, it's not PMC. --Mhhossein talk 16:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability isn’t even the main problem here.Trillfendi (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find her performances in "nationally major music television network"s, which you can't. --Mhhossein talk 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Avang Music its singers they have a article and see Category:Music television channels and Category:Music Music television channels look at nationally in dictionary do you mean PMC have to create by Islamic republic of Iran that never allow to a women singing can you tell some Persian music television? all of them rotation plying Ahllam WP:MUSICBIO#11.--Reza Amper (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (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) 13:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobobangla

Nobobangla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any information that would verify this. Tried searching under "Nobobangla" and "Nobo bangla" (second one suggested by Google) but found nothing. "Language in India publication" giving me an Adobe error so can't check it, and Nobobangla.org is dead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is just another self claimed linguist + language reformer's pipe dream, somehow managed to get published in a journal. Shah M Musa is an computer engineer and is not an linguist. His proposal has not been studied upon and has no significant relevance. We cannot merge it to Bengali script, as this is fundamentally a different script and will give this non-substantial design undue coverage. --nafSadh did say 15:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a highly relevant comment that should be strongly considered by the closer of this AfD. A merge would give undue weight to a non-notable proposed script. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of tallest buildings in Albania. Tone 16:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Tirana

List of tallest buildings in Tirana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List that is not notable as a set and is organized according to a private data mining company. Fails WP:LISTN. Citrivescence (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm normally pretty harsh on these lists because they stink of OR to me. In this case the sources show that there are listings for the tallest buildings in Albania, but not for Tirana. I think there's a strong chance that sources could be found in Albanian though, and wonder if this has been looked at. FOARP (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little particularly Albanian about this one (in comparison with the Albanian kulla and Albanian Bunkers), except the location. The list shows examples of modern architecture, wherein size appears to matter. There are many lists of this type, grouped by country, and there is nothing special about this one, except the remarkable photoshop painting, which alone merits keeping the article. Maybe the list can be expanded with local intelligence, like architects, rental prices, reviews, notable people and events connected to it. These are likely to be covered by local and regional newspapers. The list is an example of using Wikipedia as an intelligence database, and also a funny example of WP:POVology. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are lists like this for many major cities. I think it's reasonable to have one for the capital of Albania. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (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. Possible merging and/or redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Reformed Church in Portugal

Evangelical Reformed Church in Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in pt.wiki after consensus at pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Igreja Reformada Evangélica em Portugal. The two references aren't sources anyway: first is the pt.wiki deleted page, and second isn't reliable. —Pórokhov Порох 04:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All denominations are notable? —Pórokhov Порох 19:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But is there a valid content in this page to merge it? I don't think so: one source is a Portuguese Wikipedia deleted (by me), and other isn't reliable.—Pórokhov Порох 06:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the information is inaccurate? If so, then the lack of WP:RS would be a good reason to delete instead of merge. On the other hand, if the information is verifiable just not verified, then the lack of WP:RS is not a reason to delete without merging, but rather a reason to merge and try to get better sources. YBG (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes, inaccurate and without reliable sources. A search don't present relevant results.—Pórokhov Порох 02:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pórokhov: Nothing jumps out to me as being likely inaccurate. Maybe non-notable; perhaps the sources aren't WP:RS or independent, but to say it is inaccurate means that there is some information that you believe is false. What information do you believe to be false? YBG (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I don't know if the content is false, but we can't confirm the truthfulness of facts. Maybe inaccurete is a wrong word, sorry, I'm not a native speaker :P. —Pórokhov Порох 03:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:10, 5 January 2019 (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. Michig (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Barsukova

Anna Barsukova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Model may meet NModel but there is no GNG at all. The closest thing to a source I could find was from Teen Vogue in 2007. Trillfendi (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article stops in 2008, as did her modeling career, but she gets coverage more recently for the health food/beverage business she founded after retiring from modeling and getting a business degree, and for her personal life. See this 2015 profile in the Russian edition of Tatler [88] or this "success story" profile from her school [89] for more current information and leads on an improved WP:BEFORE. Also please remember that sources in Russian (or any other language) are explicitly allowed on enwiki, as WP:N makes clear. Bakazaka (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: I tried to find Russian sources but couldn’t so I assumed one of you could do it better than me.Trillfendi (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: I encourage you to ask for help at a relevant WikiProject talk page, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, while doing your WP:BEFORE for a deletion nomination. Many WikiProjects are quite helpful, and you might find that an article is a candidate for improvement rather than deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated on the basis of verifiability for her modeling career. For that, I saw no means of improvement. If she meets notability for business then I guess the article could be rescued, but I don’t think that’s possible at this time.Trillfendi (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[You mean this Teen Vogue article (if one could even call it that) where they ask her random questions like her favorite cds? No that does not substantiate significant coverage or notability. No sources given and none found do, that’s the problem here. Supermodels.nl is a blog, FMD and defunct NYMag profiles are databases, they don’t give notability. Please show me other sources you’re talking about. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, are you saying that the Tatler article linked above does not count toward notability, in your opinion? Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I forgot to take a look at that one.) It appears to give a hint of notability to her business endeavors, unfortunately they don’t go in depth, but at the same time it seems to stand on her brief modeling career. The title itself is “Anna Barsukova: the new girlfriend of the oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev” which really makes no sense IMO because the article only mentions him twice and he isn’t an investor in her business. In my eyes it’s their attempt to expand on gossip, because I don’t see much else about their relationship if it’s still going on. So I think that one is a toss-up.Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so other editors driving by know what we're talking about here, the Tatler article is a 1000+ word magazine profile [90] directly on the subject, covering her modeling history, her educational trajectory, her multiple business startups, her personal life, etc. By itself it is not enough to establish notability under WP:BASIC, given the need for multiple sources. But it is significant coverage, and if there are editors who actually want to improve the article, it's a good pointer to things she did after her modeling career ended, which the nomination did not take into account. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CHILL (consortium)

CHILL (consortium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Consortium of Independent Health Information Libraries in London – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NORG. SITH (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I’ve considered putting this one up for AfD in the past too. Mccapra (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (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. Salting seems like overkill for one recreation two years after the prior deletion, but is an option if there are further revivals without new evidence of notability. RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-Day Evangelist Church

AfDs for this article:
Seventh-Day Evangelist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My WP:BEFORE search was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. It looks like it was tag-bombed in 2011 and has not been referenced since that time. I looked through Google Books (a few mentions but nothing of substance), Google News, and Google Search without anything significant. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 5 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Junglists

The Junglists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded. Original rationale was failure of WP:BAND. Cannot substantiate alleged quote from NME which was the rationale for the deprod. SITH (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources except a single article about their disbandment in local newspaper Newbury Today. NME quote is unverifiable as searching for them on NME.com finds nothing and no-one's going to trawl through paper archives without even a publication date. Nothing that meets the other criteria of WP:BAND. Qwfp (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2019 (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 Zodiac Aerospace. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Seats U.S.

Zodiac Seats U.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable from Zodiac Aerospace. Searching for Zodiac Seats U.S. just produces results for Zodiac Aerospace Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:59, 5 January 2019 (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 Procedural close. user: Anthony Appleyard, you say you deleted the page, but the log says otherwise. If this is a blatant copyvio, then speedy delete it, or at least restore the speedy tag for someone else to deal with. If it is only suspected copyvio, list at WP:CP. If there is something else to this, a nomination with a clear rationale is required. SpinningSpark 03:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Independence Model

Binary Independence Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messages copied from Talk:Binary Independence Model
  • i was trying to make a resumed presentation of the model in question with source from that books pages. If it is still too close to the book's wording what should i do? would it be acceptable to refer people to the book link with the definition of the method and delete the definitions section? i am not sure i can rewrite better in my own words...

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riclas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 January 2010

  • I have done some rewriting. I think, given the technical and factual nature of the content this is now far enough from the source not to infringe copyright (and it is only a page or so from an entire book, although that is spread over many web pages, so more eligible for fair use). However I will leave the decision for another admin to review. DES (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reviewing admin should note that not all of the content on the page is in any way derived from the source, so this probbly shouldn't be a speedy in any case. DES (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (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. Obvious sockpuppetry aside, the keep comments do not make any commonly accepted arguments for notability. RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tanster

The Tanster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to establish any notability for this person, and the included references do not do so either. This doesn't appear to meet the standards for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and clearly displays a lack of NPOV even in the first paragraph. Jelleecat (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are all local. If you do a search for "Tanster Rainbow Project" you will quickly come to someone's Linkedin page where they claim they did social media manipulation for the "Tanster Rainbow Project", which was apparently intended as a way to promote local charities. Inadequate independent and diverse sourcing to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP'Bold text' I created this Wiki account when I heard someone had made a recommendation to delete Tanster’s Wikipedia page. I am fan of Tanster’s and regularly follow her blog and YouTube page. She has a very active presence across multiple social media platforms. I have noticed that Wikipedia seems to have a preference for old media forms in determining whether a person is worthy of inclusion, but I would suggest this preference is not reflective of modern culture. Tanster has thousands of fans not only across America but also throughout the world. She is popular, respected and influential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilisk Bowbow (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above account is an SPA with two edits in the Tanster-related fandom field.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP'Bold text'Hello. Why would someone want to delete a page? I'm betting it's one of the crooks Tanster's exposing. The NXVIUM cult is associated with high profile politicians, such as Anthony Wiener, Huma Abedin, and a whole host of others. Tanster has broken the story about a witness to these high profile politicians. Do you think they want to avoid publicity like this? I'm sure they do. There is also the black magic con man sleazy sex guru pervert Mas Sajady who Tanster has exposed. She has loads of publicity about that on her Facebook and website. Mas Sajady has ties to pedophilia. You would think that anyone who would publicize that someone has ties to pedophilia -- would be a highly notable figure. Unless, perhaps, you are a pedophile yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Wahrheit (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPI would agree that this motion to delete Tanster's page is probably politically motivated. According to the Wikipedia definition of general notability, there is a presumption of notability if the person has received coverage in reliable, independent sources. The definition goes on to say that there are no fixed amount of sources required but "generally" multiple sources are expected. This means that one source can be sufficient. The definition also includes that any form of media is acceptable, not just "old" media as another commenter stated. Tanster has a very active following both of her art career and her activism. She is well known through out the Hamptons in New York but also has a large fan base across many countries. She is a social activist working in both women's rights and cult victimization. Her renown is growing. I think it would be a disservice to the community to deprive the public of the information that Wikipedia has about her. I also think it would a disservice to the good work she is doing. Thank you for your time.
Similar to ThatMontrealIP's comment above, both of the two previous comments are also from SPAs with edits only related to this Tanster fandom. I've commented on the Jamesbernet SPA before - the original creator of The Tanster article. I need to reiterate: Wikipedia is not about YOU. See also: Conflict of interest and What Wikipedia is not. Jelleecat (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize it wasn't clear. I created the Tanster page. Full disclosure, I've been a fan of Tanster's for years. Who else is going to create a Wikipedia page but someone interested in a subject? Tanster has brought hundreds of new donors to the Coalition of Women's Cancers charity. She's raised tens of thousands of dollars. I have no financial interest in that charity or her work. I just admire and respect what she is doing. This was my first Wikipedia page. I am also thinking about making one for the Coalition of Women's Cancers. This wonderful charity has helped thousands of women with therapy and services over the years. I am also planning to make a page for them. Hopefully it won't get attacked the way Tanster's has. I'm really not sure why there is any resistance to her having a page. I will admit I have found the mechanics of Wikipedia difficult to navigate. Sorry if I'm not doing right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbernet (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My name was deleted from my original comment along with the date I made it. I think something Jelleecat did by adding a response may have deleted it. Anyway, it's from me and I'm not sure how to fix it. Sorry again. Jamesbernet —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very interesting. How about explaining this edit where you make a detailed comment under your account, but intentionally sign it with "Secret Warheit"?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin lots of duck-like fishiness in the malformatted keep votes above, an SPI was filed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP So let me see if I've got this straight. Someone wants to take down the page of charity artist? Is that right? Why would anyone want to do that? You know Tanster donates her original and innovative artwork for women's cancer, right? She's active at many charity events. She participates in parades with her art cars promoting the charity. She's got tons of fans. She's inspired a lot of kids to get into art and charity. I mean seriously, why would anyone to take her page down? This is ridiculous. Thiscantbereal (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
another sudden SPA.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2019 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Lindy Exchange

Prairie Lindy Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to me to meet criteria 5 (content fork from Lindy exchange, which itself is likely a fork of Lindy Hop), 6, and 8 (WP:GNG of the WP:DEL-REASON) Jelleecat (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wallington

Jack Wallington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

typical PR bio for midlevel executive: promotional aspects include: putting current position first, giving a list of what he supports but without evidence he has done anything particular about them, using his name as often as possible, listing minor awards.

There is furthermore no actual proof of notability except for misc. press releasees, listings, and his own publications.

I tried rewriting this to remove promotionalism , but I found there was nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete claims are highly exaggerated. For example, "starred" in a BBC series, but the series was a home gardening show where the show visits a different home gardener every week, and one week they came to his garden. None of the several similar claims in article are claims to anything recognized here as notability. and there is no WP:SIGCOV of him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Native Scientist

Native Scientist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonprofit organization lacking notability. There are several references on the page but they are all either primary, non-independent, or only have passing mentions of the organization. Fails WP:NORG. Citrivescence (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way are these many references not independent? Rathfelder (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder: A quick glance at the reference list shows that numbers 6-15 are all non-independent in that they are either produced by the organization itself or organizations that have partnerships with Native Scientist, e.g. this piece by King's College London describing an event held on their campus. Can you look at the reference list and point to two specific references that have significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources? Citrivescence (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Kings College is sufficiently well established that if it publishes stuff about it, even if held on its campus, that counts as independent. The fact that there is a relationship with a whole load of other substantial organisations does not compromise their independent status. Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder: That is not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:IS. If you can find two independent sources that fulfill the other notability criteria, please share them. Citrivescence (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has significant substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as here which is not affiliated, and another example is this one which also is not affiliated, so the subject deserves to have an article in the encyclopedia, and concerns over advertising tone can be addressed with editing for neutrality, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic". I'm quite sure these universities have no vested interest in this topic. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of the page considered for deletion. I understand the concerns raised about its notability, given the apparent lack of independent sources. I use "apparent" because it remains unclear to me what independent sources really are, as it seems that people commenting above are not in agreement. If I understand correctly, pieces of news in general media on a specific organisation would count as independent sources for notability. There are several of these sources for Native Scientist in the Portuguese media, for example, and I can provide them if you think that would be suitable. I haven't done so before (in the page) because English-speaking readers would not necessarily understand the content of the sources. I still believe that Native Scientist would deserve an entry in the English wikipedia for several reasons: (1) this project was born in England, (2) the operating language of this organisation is English, (3) many of its activities take place across the UK, (4) this organization has a scientific purpose and the scientific community uses English as their communication language.Rafaelgalupa (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton & Area Land Trust

Edmonton & Area Land Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY / WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find significant coverage in of this organization in independent, reliable, secondary sources. While there are a few news articles mentioning the organization and one page on the City of Edmonton's website, there's little else. There is an obnoxious amount of information here that can only be found in the WP:PRIMARY sources provided, some of which are also WP:FACEBOOK links. The article also contains substantial WP:PUFFERY, including the paragraph on the "Emerald Award" they won in 2013. I would've cleaned up the article to remove puffery, keep mainly secondary sources, and remove external links (including the PDF link in the middle of the article), but this would see most of the article content removed as it is. Vanstrat ((🗼)) 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to Keep this article

I have removed many of the links to the Edmonton and Area Land Trust webpage plus some wording that I thought could be viewed as WP:PUFFERY. I have also submitted some requested changes on the talk page associated with the Edmonton and Area Land Trust Wikipedia page to add supporting links from other secondary sources - outside webpages and news sources. These sources also support the WP:NOTABILITY of this article. I appreciate your assistance in helping us comply with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Please let me know if you have additional recommendations - I would like to keep this page but make alterations as needed.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust.

Mjacklinealt (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Changes to Edmonton and Area Land Trust Article

I have suggested a number of edits to streamline the Edmonton and Area Land Trust page, and suggested the addition of references to support the information written and the WP:NOTABILITY of the page itself.

These changes introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only, and ensures that information written is unique and not copied from another website.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust so I did not make these edits directly. I hope the changes meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. I am open to further suggestions.

Mjacklinealt (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The changes that have been requested are to add references to the Edmonton Journal which would not be considered an impartial source in this respect. What is needed for the article are references to sources which are not connected in any way whatsoever to the subject of the article. Without these sources, the article's POV cannot be stated as being neutral. Unfortunately, seeing the COI editor state that their changes "introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only" seems to suggest that this editor does not fully grasp WP:IIS or the requirements of WP:N.  Spintendo  22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for taking the time to help me improve this article.

With the previous suggested edits I have been trying to address the issues highlighted at the top of the page – that the article relies too much on primary sources and that the subject appears to not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

I reread the general notability guidelines WP:NOTABILITY as well as a number of associated pages to ensure I have a good grasp of this concept. I believe this page meets notability guidelines because of significant, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources such as the webpages of the Edmonton Nature Club (ENC) - http://edmontonnatureclub.org/endowment-for-land-conservation-and-stewardship.html and the City of Edmonton - https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/edmonton-area-land-trust.aspx. I realize these are primary sources and may not be considered fully independent in that they are involved in founding EALT, but they are entirely separately governed and made their webpages without influence from the Edmonton and Area Land Trust (EALT). The ENC has an elected board of directors who decide what they do, and the City of Edmonton webpage about EALT would have been created by staff and directed by elected officials. Are these unacceptable because they have any connection at all with EALT?

Whether those sources are acceptable or not, I have also looked through the suggested searches and found several sources of information that meet the most or all of the requirements of secondary, independent, verifiable sources. Would these be acceptable to support information in the article? I would format them properly and suggest them as an edit.

Could you recommend what you think should be improved about this article at this time? I appreciate you taking the time to read through this and help me improve this article. I would welcome further recommendations to prevent this page from being deleted.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust. Mjacklinealt (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to John Kerry. czar 18:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry

List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. One sentence is sourced with one RS: FactCheck.Org. There are no other RS. Whatever content is deemed noteworthy can simply be merged with the John Kerry main article. To be honest, I don't think there's any salvageable content here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented in your similar AFD, CONTENTFORK doesn't provide a deletion rationale here. There's also no question that what bills Kerry sponsored while in Congress can be sourced, with citations to the bills themselves. I'm really inclined to view this kind of list to politicians what bibliographies are to writers, though I'm open to a compelling reason why we shouldn't. postdlf (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anything notable can be merged to John Kerry, per nom. Reywas92Talk 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The lack of verifiability here is easily addressed, but the real question is whether treating this in the detail it deserves would overwhelm the parent article and necessitate a spinoff. At the moment, I'm not seeing compelling evidence that that is the case, so a merger would be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2019 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eldridge

Susan Eldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(NMODEL / GNG) The problem here is this article relies entirely on one source, a questionnaire no less, that really contributes virtually nothing except that she’s from Seattle. In trying to find any sources about her or her career, nothing has turned up. Trillfendi (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:09, 5 January 2019 (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. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. RL0919 (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politeja

Politeja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic journal that fails WP:GNG. I used WP:JOURNALCRIT for specific notability guidelines and Politeja fails the three criteria. The page states that it is indexed by Social Sciences Citation Index and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, which would help it satisfy c1 and c2, but I did not find evidence of that. I also checked the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and the journal is not indexed there. The article creator stated that they created the page to distinguish it from a different journal with a similar name, which is helpful in spirit but not grounds for having an article on Wikipedia. Citrivescence (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I checked the Journal Citation Reports, because those will often still display journals that were included but discontinued, but found nothing. Same for the Clarivate Master list, so apparently the article is incorrect in claiming inclusion in the SSCI. None of the other listed databases are very selective, so even if the journal was included in them, this would not meet NJournals. Likewise, MIAR does not include this journal, but lists 3 non-selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. If research on this were thorough enough, it would show the publication is not defunct.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po Mieczu (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.politeja.wsmip.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/
  • Comment I also noted that the journal is not defunct. However, that is immaterial. It's not enough for a journal just to exist in order to meet our inclusion criteria. And reversely, if a journal is notable, it remains notable even if it stops being published, as notability is not temporary. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like most non-English journals, it is an obscure title with little impact. It seems listed on the Polish government list of journals (pl:Wykaz czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego) in the 'worse' (B) category ([96]). The B category should not be seen as sufficient for notability as per the pl wiki article cited, it has been known to list predatory journals. I have to conclude that the journal does fail Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) - it is not influential, widely cited nor of historic significance. PS. The article also claims that 'Politeja is abstracted and indexed in: Social Sciences Citation Index'. If this was true, it wouldn't be on the B list, and it would probably be notable - but this claim needs cite and verification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:02, 5 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Tomar

Sudhakar Tomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable businessperson, fails WP:NBIO. "Top 100" lists are really not useful to establish notability unless there's some more meat in the hamburger. And established notability practice is that non-notable awards from non-notable organizations also don't contribute. So we've got basically nothing left here for sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (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. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Babalola

Charles Babalola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Babalola has not met the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions. His role in The Legend of Tarzan was not significant. His role in Mary Magdalene may or may not have been, but one significant role is not enough. The sources here are either from the school he graduated from or local paper reports, nothing that really shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The majority presented cogent arguments that the topic meets WP:LISTN and is not simply a travel directory. This does not exclude the possibility that the article could be improved, but that is not an issue for AfD. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines

AfDs for this article:
List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:not After reviewing, Wikipedia is not is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Not a Travel guide (details of bus/train service are not pertinent here) . Wikipedia is not a information database (route infomation for buses, trams, municipal railways) .This page should be deleted . Once deleted, users can get transit route information on the local transit site which is heavily maintained by the agency them self, if a route been changed. The SFMTA Website provides up to date and accurate information. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway_lines 13 years ago this page was proposed for deletion and somehow failed. Colton Meltzer (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: This is an utterly frivolous nomination. This is a featured list - one that has passed examination as one of the best lists on Wikipedia - not a travel guide. It is not intended to provide up-to-the-minute travel information; it presents a high-level overview of service types and routes and is heavily cross-linked from other articles. (Note that the nominator first tried to PROD the article against policy, then harassed the closer of the old AfD. His claim that the old AfD "somehow failed" is clearly false - ten of twelve commenters indicated it should be kept.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The harassment claim is invalid accusation. This page is a Travel Guide. What is this 28 19th Avenue Inbound Terminal Van Ness and North Point | Outbound Terminal Daly City BART - 23 Monterey Inbound Terminal Palou and Third Outbound Terminal Great Highway and Sloat/Sloat and 47th Avenue) These are details of streets of stops or final stops. Something provided in SFMTA Routes and Stops website. Colton Meltzer. Many more examples. (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not an expert on these sort of transport articles, but the fact that this was promoted to featured list status in 2010 and remains a featured list today says to me that the premise of the article is fundamentally sound and the article itself is well done. If the objection is to links to stale route sources, those links could be updated or even perhaps deleted. But deleting the whole article seems an unnecessarily extreme response to stale sources. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being on "featured list" does not void Wikipedia guidelines. I agree, some information like the background should be kept and moved to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_namee Colton Meltzer (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but consensus is policy and is part of one of our 5 pillars. See WP:5P4. If this article has been vetted by multiple editors and not only be found to be encyclopedic but worthy of featured list status--for 8 years, that is a strong consensus. A contested interpretation of WP:NOT is a weak argument for overturning such consensus. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure this does not violates the WP:NOTTRAVEL ?
* 37-Corbett (goes to) Haight and Masonic
* 56 Rutland (goes to) McLaren Park (Visitacion Valley Middle School)
* NX Judah Express (goes to) Bush and Montgomery Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for keeping an article in a deletion discussion. Spiderone 10:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reason(s). At the first glance, it passes GNG and by virtue of being an FL, it clearly is a page of high quality. However, I got around to checking other cities. New York seems to have pages on List of Bus routes by borough. There's one for Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, et al. But then just because New York has a page, doesn't mean San Franciso gets to have one. I get it. Now List of Bus Routes in London has survived not one but two AfDs (albeit both were over a decade ago). One of the arguments then was "some things are encyclopedic to some but not to others" and I'm inclined to agree with that. I would ask folks to take a look at those AfDs and the deletion reviews linked there as well. My reasons for backing this article is more or less the same. This article acts as an index. It's primary intent is for tram routes (or cable car if you like it), which is fixed infrastructure. Subsequently it extends to bus routes, which ideally shouldn't be in this article with the current title. That's all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable topic. I'm at a complete loss as to why anyone would think Wikipedia would be made better by deleting coverage of significant infrastructure in a major city. The deletion rationale has no more substance than a slogan—a completely superficial reading of NOTTRAVEL, as the details and examples given there of what kind of ephemeral or nonnotable content consensus has deemed unencyclopedic (pricing, contact info, nonnotable hotels, etc.) should show. It does not mean that we delete otherwise notable and valid information just because it could also possibly be useful to travelers (though I don't see how it really could be used as such without timetables, addresses, fare info, etc...which, as with most NOTDIR issues, we would just remove those details rather than deleting the whole page). postdlf (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to San Francisco Municipal Railway. Most of the content (with exception to the links to the route maps and schedules) can easily be moved to the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merge is good alternative option. Most of content shall be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_names and "Travel Guide Table for each Route can be a drop down table.The Agency also already setup a "Travel Guide" for riders to look up - https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops. Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no different to a bus route list - I cannot find any evidence of notability nor can I find any indepth coverage - Closest we get to that is maps,
Being a FL isn't a reason to keep and as can be seen here one FL has already been deleted (That AFD was in 2009 so whether anyone knew it was a FL is anyones guess),
Fails NOTTRAVELGUIDE (to a certain point) and GNG/BASIC. –Davey2010Talk 22:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
nor can I find any indepth coverage I have several books with substantial coverage (1 or more chapters) listing and describing the specific lines (not merely discussing the system or its history, but specific lines). Broader histories that discuss specific lines, and non-travel-guide information about current individual lines, are widely available in book and online sources (including this highly detailed analysis of service proposals.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's reasonably well written and well sourced. People read it. (Or at least they open the page.) It could do with some improvements to be sure, but you can say the same for (?virtually) every entry in wikipedia. Our principal customer for wikipedia is not ourselves and fellow contributors. It's the general reader. (Yes, sometimes the same person: very often not.) Someone sufficiently interested to key in a collection of words on a search engine to land on a page where he or she can learn more about something that she or he was wondering about. Why would you want to tell someone interested in this information that wikipedia won't help (despite folks having already done the work) because we think we know better what he/she should wish to know, or that he or she should look some place else? Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles01 - If you could replace each and every "schedule" and "maps" with actual reliable sources I'd be more than happy to keep .... –Davey2010Talk 22:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As so often, we are faced with a choice between "improve" and "give up". I guess that in the absence of powerful evidence pointing the other way, I instinctively prefer the idea of improvement. You don't. But if the nominator here has already spent half a day looking for better sources and then failed in the attempt, I guess he would have told us so. I might even find his nomination more persuasive if he had done that. What we can both hope for is that someone more familiar with the available sources than (I suspect) either of us may now be stirred into action.... and that could well include adding or substituting better and more convincing sources. And please .... someone Charles01 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer improvement over deletion but so far I've found nothing convincing although in many AFDs people find things I do not which could easily be the case here, The nominator would've performed BEFORE although agreed they should've said that,
If you could improve it that would be fab. –Davey2010Talk 22:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was 13 years to improve this page, but people who want to look up travel in SF for each route should be directed to the agency website which shows a live GPS map, frequency of each bus and stops. Been told many times Wikipedia not a travel guide. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops .

Here a example of "Transit Guide on Wikipedia similar to "List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines " " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_services & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herald_Street_station&oldid=820997875 Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vertium - Having major articles like this isn't a valid reason for keeping this, Can you please provide a policy based reason for !keeping, GNG is so far not met nor is BASIC so if you have any others I'l all ears. –Davey2010Talk 02:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davey2010 - Hi Davey - If maintaining similar articles isn't justification to your thinking, then I guess the opposite approach could be taken and we could nominate all city-wide mass transit articles. But I think that would be silly. I'm sorry you don't think I've sufficiently argued my !vote here, and since I noted that you have rebutted many of those who believe we should "keep", I'm going to politely decline to further comment, beyond this edit. Thanks! Vertium When all is said and done 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion shall last longer than last nomination to allow more users to review the direction of this Page. No way posting travel details for buses like "36th avenue, 37th avenue and 38th avenue" can be allowed. Colton Meltzer (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article is well-written and sourced, and covers a notable subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and i can see speedy keep from repeated speedy keep comments which is unacceptable to wikiepdia. AD Talk 04:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't see my way to supporting a deletion of the entire article although I'm not enthusiastic about the list of bus routes. In any event, though, it would have been better for the nominator to campaign to have the list demoted from Featured List status first, rather than nominating a Featured List for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides here. Ultimately I have to ask whether it would make sense to include a list of lines in a good article about the railway/bus system. I tend to think that, if space allows, the answer would be yes. So I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. What we tend to do when such embedded lists get too long, however, is spin them out to a separate article. I'm surprised this made FL with so many external links and no sources outside the lead, but I don't think that's so relevant for this discussion's purpose. Presumably if this, a FL, is deleted on WP:NOT grounds, then then the entire category Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States (as well as for other countries) would also be deleted. That's the sort of thing that I think should be discussed with the relevant wikiprojects first. Not because wikiprojects determine notability, but because I think it's more about how best to handle this sort of information (in a parent article vs. a stand-alone). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is a list of public transportation routes which are as permanent as permanent is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see History of Public Transit in San Francisco. Andrew D. (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Canvassing by the nominator. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This some sort of public stunt. Its random invites. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was canvassing, it was not effective. (I was pinged and !voted keep). :) Colton, pinging random specific people is often frowned upon because it's easily confused with (or overlaps with) canvassing. The best thing to do is to leave concise, neutral messages on discussion pages like a relevant wikiproject. Ping individuals only if, for example, that person has been involved with this page in the past. Rule of thumb anyway. I don't think there was any harm done here, regardless. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I can't imagine what the nominator thought they were doing nominating a featured page without even attempting a discussion first. My rationale is as Vertium. This type of page is well established as desirable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, OTHERSTUFF exists, but this stuff has repeatedly been kept by the community at AFD, and surviving an FAL review is even more significant. None of the nominators rationales, not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, apply. The article is none of those things, and against that WP:5P asserts that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I do think, however, that the inclusion of bus routes in an article on railway lines is odd and needs examining, but AFD is not the place to do that. SpinningSpark 17:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, so many of the complaints seem focused on bus route details, which could be excised if a consensus of knowledgeable editors decide that's not appropriate for this topic. That's a matter for informed and targeted editing, not wiping out a page. I think on the OTHERSTUFF issue, the fact that this is not a one-off page but rather part of a longstanding, and systematic attempt to document transit infrastructure in major cities around the world is evidence of a project-wide consensus among many more editors than those who drive by AFDs. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The San Francisco Municipal Railway is a transit authority which operates a variety of lines, not just railways. The featured list nomination specifically focussed on its bus lines as kurykh wrote, "There are actually no featured bus line lists on Wikipedia, so I'm going to try to make this the first one." If the name of the authority seems anomalous then people who are bothered by this should take it up with them. They might also complain to the "London Underground" as the majority of its network (55%) is not actually underground! Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — When WP:NOTTRAVEL was added in 2004 it said articles should "mention landmarks" but exclude telephone numbers and prices, and exclude advice on the best places to visit. Since then, the wording has been expanded and tweaked here and there, but the meaning has changed little. Exclude the changeable, the ephemera: phone numbers, prices, departure schedules, business hours. There are exceptions: the Georgetown Steam Plant is a museum only open one day a month for only four hours. The Maharajas' Express is perhaps the most expensive train ticket on Earth. But identifying the routes and constituent parts of transport lines falls well within the bounds of encyclopedic content -- What is it? Where is it? What's it called? What is it for? What does it do? What Plato and Aristotle would call the thing's essential, not accidental properties. The traits without which it would no longer be itself. Perhaps external links to train schedules are better off lower down in the page than up in the main tables, but that's WP:SURMOUNTABLE, outside the scope of AfD. Even so, WP:ELLIST actually suggests a travel guide external link as the right way to do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cards84664 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Dennis Bratland's !vote just above. I'd like to see more history, and perhaps the linking to the ephemera could be handled better, but there's no need for deletion here. Transit infrastructure is a vitally important part of urban life, and thus a general encyclopedia should cover it. "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" means that we're not in the business of restaurant reviews. But we do write about how cities work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 years from last nominations should of hinted "improvements", but still looks like same as before. I agreed there should be improvement (to distant away fro being travel guide), a merge into this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_names. However, willing work with other to improve Request Deletion Closure 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Colton Meltzer (talk)
  • Keep per Dennis and Andrew D. Also willing to work on it as with Colton Meltzer. SITH (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, not just a "improvement". Expected to be a major overhaul in coming days, once this is complete.

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines Page Improvement Plan

  1. Merge into parent page section "route names"
  2. Possible Template change for the list of routes.
  3. to be discussed

Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think you're really reading the tenor of the discussion here correctly, but in any event the list's talk page is the proper place for you to raise your editing suggestions and try to establish consensus for them. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just note, my stance remains at (Delete). Is there a specific Transportation Wiki page?
  • Delete. You must be joking: this is 100% guide material, which belongs on Muni's own web site. If the Keep voters really and truly think this is salvageable, move it to Draft space so they can prove it. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These recent discussions, which soundly reject the notion that NOTDIR excludes transit system/transportation-related lists, should also be considered: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 9#Adria Airways destinations and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?. There simply is no consensus that NOTTRAVELGUIDE = NOTTRANSITCOVERAGE; quite the contrary both as demonstrated in this AFD and in the broader community. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already indicated, 13 years from last nominations should of hinted "improvements to distant away from being a travel guides", but still looks like same as before. San Francisco already have a "well dedicated - updated - Travel Guide for the routes - Once this page gets removed and retain background info to the parent page under route names as the most reasonable place to put the information. Add a link to direct users to the agency travel guides for routes - https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page isn't going to get removed, nor is there a consensus that it needs significant improvement in order to be kept. That's the whole point. The consensus is that it is not a "travel guide", whatever you think that means, and that was the same consensus 13 years ago, as that AFD was a clear "keep". You simply aren't understanding the discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page should not be deleted as it is a notable topic with much coverage in reliable sources such as reliable book sources. It has been extensively reviwed as a high quality article and should not be subject to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT whims of editors who hate list articles for some reason or another. If Wikipedia starts deleting featured articles it is a very bad sign to the public that deletionism is going to extremes and that even the best articles are not safe Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is no less of an encyclopaedic list than when it was nominated for very similar reasons (and nearly unanimously kept) in 2006. There is plenty of evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:LISTN as well as passing the bar if it were considered just a sub-article of San Francisco Municipal Railway. Broader than just this article, lists of rail lines have been found, time and again, to be perfectly encyclopaedic topics so the nomination needs to detail what is different about this list, but it fails to do this. Finally, the nominator's main concern seems to be with some of the specific links/sources in the article - this is something that should be discussed on the article talk page as deleting the article would be overkill even without all the other reasons to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but no buses Railway lines are notable like canals and major highways partly because of the physical infrastructure on the ground per WP:GEOLAND. I have no idea why this article on railway lines features a list of bus routes - these may or may not be notable and should either be split to a seperate article or deleted.--Pontificalibus 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As explained above, the article is about all the lines operated by the SFMR and this specifically includes its many bus lines. The SFMR operates a variety of transport and they have much the same function and purpose: wheeled transport moving passengers from A to B along a route. The idea that trains are ok but buses are not seems to be an absurd prejudice. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I remember now that US English has bus routes as "lines" (well, some of the time anwyay: Category:Lists_of_bus_routes_in_the_United_States) this is especially confusing with this title, and not just to me it seems. --12:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_5&oldid=877004213"