Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 January	5 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Academy 9 (France)

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

Was going to merge this into Star Academy (French TV series) however the parent article has more information about the season than the actual season article. The season article seems to be an incomplete draft with only one external link to its broadcaster's site and no sources. Looks like the article was abandoned shortly after the season started. Requesting that this be deleted since the section on the parent article covers the season slightly better on English Wikipedia at this time. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the season article is one of the many examples of reality TV show articles that contains WP:INDISCRIMINATE info about the "contest" which is well beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia should do. (That's what Wikias are for...) In addition, the article is completely unsourced. I agree with the nominator that what is covered on this season at the main Star Academy (French TV series) article is sufficient, and that there is not enough valid content to justify a "standalone" season article in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not suitable for mainspace in its current form and as the nom said, the parent has much more information. --Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 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 09:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mireasă pentru fiul meu season 2 (Romania)

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

Article is very outdated, cites no sources and is improperly formatted. Most edits that have been made to this article from 2013-present seem to be from a maintenance perspective. The main article for this series Mireasă pentru fiul meu already has a small recap of this season and who won. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – for pretty much the same rationale I just offered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Academy 9 (France). In this case too, the "season" article is completely unsourced, and the base Mireasă pentru fiul meu contains a sufficient summary of the season. Again, there is not enough valid content to justify a "standalone" season article in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is in terible condition and not suitable for mainspace. A lot of drive-by editors (and sadly, not limited to them alone) are too eager to create reality season tables, without actually adding any other information or even sources to the article. As nom said, the main article is better for this. --Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 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) 01:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Compassion Movement"

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

This is an unremarkable neologism which is attributed to one person, Jennifer Skiff, coining it in 2018. Also, most of the content in this article is duplicated from Skiff’s article. Caorongjin (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to relative insignificance and lack of recognition (lack of use as a term) and as per nom. Dictonary1 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Jennifer Skiff article, where the term already has all the coverage it deserves. --Lockley (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - there's only one source - also making it WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 11 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Leibowitz

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

Only references are to her social media Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a G11.Trillfendi (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 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. Tone 09:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Suns

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

The way I see it here is like this: neither the band, their only single (which redirects to their album), or the album itself fall under NMUSIC (or GNG for that matter). I tried to find significant coverage. Really the only mention of them comes from a Huffington Post writer’s list of favorite albums. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When i saw article references i was amazed why Trillfendi nominate the afd but after entering into billboard tagged references i found that it was just an hoax. Expect huffpost all references are hoax and can't find any reliable sources but again i looked into there album article and find out that they have been charted there which i quite notable. So, i want to change my desicion here as keep. AD ^Talk 07:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait here i just found out that they are charted in billboard [1] which is notable. They are notable here. AD ^Talk 08:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that having charted on Billboard is not automatically notability, right... (even if that was, having only 3 appearences, peaking at 24, 41, and 109, and not one single charting doesn’t cut it.) It certainly doesn’t supersede an absolute lack of significant coverage. Not whatsoever.Trillfendi (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Quick note - charting can be something that can establish complete notability depending on where it charts (see WP:NBAND, criteria #2). Also, keep in mind that there are reviews for the band's albums, which would establish notability (criteria #1). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a reliable music source review their album. In fact when I tried to look for some, the Wikipedia page came up. I have not found anything that gets them sigcov. HuffPost on its own certainly doesn’t do that. I think this is a case of too soon right now. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as plenty of coverage can be found with a proper search. Not only music/video coverage, but also the Zia symbol controversy. Some examples: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still saw none of that from my original Before even after going several pages. Doesn’t significant coverage mean not having to pore to even get the bare minimum? If there was enough significant coverage it would be right there. I get the MTV source (though the song itself technically isn’t notable), but a low-frequency California tabloid, and a local affiliate? Really grasping for straws. That’s why I believe this article is a too soon-er.Trillfendi (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus guidelines about WP:SIGCOV are clear. Please remember that no one is obligated to satisfy you. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just my opinion, it’s not a damn edict. I don’t see how a tabloid or local affiliate is on par with an MTV with regard to notability.Trillfendi (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a simple user (but a donating one) I found this article informative while doing a search on the band. I could care less about their notability. They existed, they have music you can download from iTunes, their footnote on history deserves to be here. Maybe the article needs to be improved but it certainly doesn't qualify for being deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.14.78 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A band’s “existence” let alone being on iTunes isn’t notability for a Wikipedia article. My God. I’ve met street buskers who have songs on Apple Music, all one has to do is fill out an application! Does that make any artist notable in itself? No. iTunes has millions of songs, which doesn’t correlate to Wikipedia articles. Where is the logic. A simple user who clearly doesn’t understand policy. Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Can you please clarify what you mean by "Some of you people are a lost cause." in your edit summary for the above edit? It seems like a gratuitous personal attack, and I'm hoping that's not what you intended. Bakazaka (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: It’s not a personal attack; nothing about AfD is personal. Lost cause simply means it’s futile. Trillfendi (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: If you didn't intend it as a personal attack, great. I encourage you to be more careful with your language in edit summaries, as "you people" might be taken to mean actual people. WP:CIVIL applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three placings on the US national chart, and sufficient reliable source coverage (e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) satisfies WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 08:19, 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) 01:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BizPac Review

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

Non-notable media site. Articles seem to consist of half article and half random tweets. Very little substance on the site itself. LionMans Account (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately there is no inherent notability for media outlets, though there probably should be. In the absence of that, however, we have to go by the GNG. All of the references here merely establish that the outlet exists. We don't have WP:INDEPENDENT references talking about BizPac Review, except one which is of questionable WP:RS. My BEFORE turns up none either. Chetsford (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @SamHolt6: You recently contested a PROD for this article. Would you like to make an argument for keeping it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG, nor does it meet WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:57, 4 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. Nothing in his footballing career comes close to satisfying NFOOTY and there Is nothing else in his life that has attracted sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Walters (footballer, born 1981)

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources or played in a fully professional league.

Was previously deleted as a PROD and was undeleted on the basis that an improved draft addresses notability concerns. None of the sources deal with the subject in significant detail. Hack (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hack: Does Draft:Gregory Walters, footballer address those concerns? That should have been history-merged in and overwrote the old version of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@hack I have copied the draft article to the page that appears to have now been set live. I believe the references provided are reliable and significant coverage of the individual. Please consider removing the proposal to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecool1234 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred rather than review the draft Draft:Gregory Walters, footballer i have copied this content into the Gregory Walters (footballer, born 1981) so the previous version has gone. I believe this new articles address the issues raised on the previous version that was deleted. It now has relevant, reliable references. I hope the article can now remain live in its latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecool1234 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY; no notability from activity outside of (playing professional) football. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely not notable for football, can't see any evidence of notability outside it either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 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) 13:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral Slake

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

Filled up with forums, unreliable blogs, fansites as sources. No sign of independent coverage online. Reading the article doesn't highlight a significant career either. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He won some minor radio contests that are themselves non-notable and there is no evidence that any of his own songs were noticed by the public. The nominator is correct on how the article is dependent upon blogs and streaming sites that only prove the existence of him and his tracks, and no other sources can be found to show notability for either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand is a not more information but why deleted it? User:Lucifero4
Delete, I went through all the sources given, they are all trivial mentions and announcements, twitter, forum posts, blogs, the only one source with three paragraphs of text gets duplicated three times. Tried to search but nothing significant turned up. With the absence of multiple independent reliable sources that give in-depth coverage, it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 21:10, 18 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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightweight protocol

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

Orphaned, no edits in nearly ten years, no real prospect of expansion. grendel|khan 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit ignorance of the topic, but based on appearance this seems to be a WP:SETINDEX or disambiguation page, as the term "lightweight protocol" could apparently refer to multiple articles. There is then no reason to expect that it would be "expanded". Or am I missing something? postdlf (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disambiguation pages tend to not get edited much, it looks fine to me. Human-potato hybrid (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a set index article or disambiguation page and does not need to notability. Editor-1 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid set index article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no case to answer as the nominator's rationale is a listed argument to avoid at deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:01, 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 speedy delete. Per G11, and also a wrong venue case. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AAA Rug Repair

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

Advertising Joshua Marooney (talk) 19:10, 4 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) 10:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Recording Studios

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

Tagged for notability since 2015 this has no verifiable sources except the start of business date. Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gets a few passing mentions or directory-type listings in various books on the recording industry, but nothing that I can see that comes anywhere near the number of sources and depth of coverage that would satisfy WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do I improve notability? How do I prevent this page from being deleted?

How about these?

https://www.niche.com/colleges/omega-studios-school-of-applied-recording-arts--and--sciences/
https://www.discogs.com/label/344592-Omega-Recording-Studios
https://tapeop.com/interviews/11/royal-trux/ https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/recording/in_the_studio_the_importance_of_learning_on_analog_tape/
https://books.google.com/books?id=KLRJUaFD2DYC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=tape+op+omega+studios&source=bl&ots=e8EMpp5mTd&sig=hKoNuGOaylInN8BVsJe7mqkUIQM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwieoMT3_9TfAhVEpIMKHbgaCr0Q6AEwDXoECBoQAQ#v=onepage&q=tape%20op%20omega%20studios&f=false Nicholas Springer (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I bulleted the above URLs to be easier to read. To Nicholas Springer: If you believe these are valid refs, create a Talk section at the article with text and these references, properly formated, so that a non-PAID editor can evaluate and decide whether to add to the article or not. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Nicholas Springer, passing mentions and directory-type listings. As for the school, what about this (I believe that's a fairly reputable and comprehensive site)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of the three references led me to inactive websites, the third is just a listing of music instructors in the DC area. My own search did not find any significant independent coverage of this studio. The Grammy Award winning Christmas album mentioned in the article was recorded at 8 different locations, including Omega, and by then she was already a major name in gospel music (so WP:NOTINHERITED applies). Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dotman

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

Not convinced that subject of this article meets WP:MUSICIAN. As at 2017 when the article was created, it was a case of WP:TOOSOON (based on the 2017 references), am not convinced there is anything different in his career between 2017 and January 2019. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 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) 10:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems to receive lots of coverage in Nigerian press. [13] Tamsier (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Contrary to what Tamsier said, the subject has not received lots of coverage. A Google search only shows the promotional links for the songs he has released or been featured on. The only convincing source I could find is this. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:00, 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 merge to Turkish Diaspora. Tone 09:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Brazilians

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

Unclear that this meets WP:GNG. An diaspora of people who reside at the intersection of two nationalities isn't inherently notable. Perhaps redirect to Turkish diaspora. SITH (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per nom, and throw in the see also page Turkish Venezuelan too. There are 20,000 combinations of [nationality] in [country]; while many certainly have large enough populations to be notable, 6,000 individuals for this article with a lack of further detail does not suggest notability at all. Reywas92^Talk 21:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, please delete nonsense like Turks in Moldova too; there are several of these. Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to Turkish Diaspora) - nom's arguments are correct, but since Brazil isn't currently in the Diaspora article, and should be, it needs to be a merge. While in this particular case GNG might also apply, the key argument for all of these is WP:REDUNDANTFORK. However, we can't decide mid-AfD which other articles should go. There is a place for separate articles to cover large country groupings. As to whether that should be some ad hoc decision or should be written up I've no idea (numbers vs % of population vs coverage would be a hell of a squabble). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Nosebagbear Mccapra (talk) 08:07, 11 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 delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji). MER-C 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Garg

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. There's maybe one or two 2016 papers that are demonstrated to have an impact on the field, no named chair or other criteria. The brand ambassadorship is pure advertising and shouldn't have any bearing on notability IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on myself. From [14] it appears that this person was a PhD candidate in 2015. In other words, a graduate student who was part of a research team which appears to be the foundation for any degree of notability. Which makes the bio look even more wobbly. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to waste time on this spam. Deleted. MER-C 02:25, 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 keep. Tone 09:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Dilloway

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

Delete. Contested A7 speedy that then received a bit of expansion. Has an Allmusic bio, and two albums that were "Contributor"-reviewed, but not the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Contestor Keep I added three solid sources (a long bio from Allmusic; two reviews from Pitchfork; two reviews from Tiny Mix Tapes), which is already substantial coverage enough to meet WP:MUSIC in virtually every deletion discussion I've been involved in. That's far from the end of what else is out there; The Quietus, Brainwashed, Resident Advisor, Exclaim!, Dusted. This is just the first two pages of Google results; this one isn't even close to borderline. Chubbles (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO and also meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in the article are fine, and there is further reliable source coverage available: No Wave, TinyMixTapes, Chicago Reader, LA Times, FACT, TinyMixTapes, Detroit Metro Times, The Quietus, Exclaim!, Exclaim!, Noisey (Vice). --Michig (talk) 08:06, 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 redirect to Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks. Any content worth merging is available under the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Millard Tawes Gymnasium

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

The content of this article is purely directory like. Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no content of any encyclopaedic value here Andrewgprout (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is overwhelming that Division I basketball arenas are notable, and notability is not temporary so the fact that the arena is no longer in use is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus by who. Notability is based on particular articles not by a genre of article. If this article is notible and not simply a directory entry then more must be able to be reliably added. I’m not sure why you mention temporary as an issue the rationale for removal above do not include this as an issue - please be careful not to use standard replies to issues like this. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect /Merge -To the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Fits nicely within that piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Division I basketball arenas are generally notable enough for their own articles, even if they are no longer in use. Yes, this article lacks a lot of content, but it could be expanded. Another option would be to merge this content into the University of Maryland Eastern Shore article. Dough4872 21:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Maryland Eastern Shore. There's not much here, nor does it seem like much material could ever be written. Per guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic." Split back only if by chance this ever can be developed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is to be merged, Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks men's basketball seems a more appropriate target than the main article on the school. Smartyllama (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks women's basketball has also used this gym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: So Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks then. That should cover both of them. I still say it should be kept, but it makes more sense to merge it with the athletics article than the university article if we're going to do that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source. I'm not sure how expandable it is - searching was difficult because there are a few Tawes Gymnasiums in Maryland - but there's nothing wrong with it as a stub since I think WP:NEXIST is satisfied. Just to figure out when it was named after Mr. Tawes, when it opened, when it got renovated to see if there are newspaper clippings... SportingFlyer talk 03:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for trying to expand it. However, the added source is not the significant coverage that GNG requires. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Permanent stubs should be merged to WP:PRESERVE.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the source passed WP:GNG (I just used it to cite the capacity,) I'm just saying sources can be found. SportingFlyer talk 18:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to University of Maryland Eastern Shore and add a line to the basketball section listing the previous venue and the current one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: There is no basketball section on the main university page. Perhaps you're thinking of Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks, or the more general "Athletics" section on the main uni page with a link to the main athletics article via hatnote? Smartyllama (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama, either place could be used. If the athletics page wants to go a basketball section and venues then sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:12, 9 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. Tone 09:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Margery Hext

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing. The subject is not notable and there is an absence of independent, reliable, significant coverage. Uninvited Company 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrote two family/local memoirs. I don't see how she passes GNG, and per my BEFORE the books don't seem to pass NBOOK - other wise I would suggest re-purposing this. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her local histories were used by others and are still used today, which indicates a level of influence that meets GNG. MurielMary (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, workings are references by other authors, definitely influential in the field of local and wider history.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Staniforthiana is referenced on p. 64 of 'Britain's History and Memory of Transatlantic Slavery: Local Nuances of a 'National Sin', and heck, Wikipedia uses her book as a reliable source for Darnall Hall. I also found a heraldry book that discusses her and her family members individually, as well as other mentions in other works. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Her death was noted in as a notable event of the year in the regional paper, The Royal Cornwall Gazette ([15] - note the paper isn't included at newspapers.com for the month of her death, so I couldn't search for an obit) as was a prize she won for her needlework in 1883 ([16]). She seems encyclopedic to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:36, 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 - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hu-manity.co

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable company which fails WP:Notability. Tinton5 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Too soon as they're only formed this year, so not significant enough coverage yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The company was formed just this year and currently lacks enough coverage for passing WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning 17:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is notable due to the amount of press coverage it has received. Per the company's Crunchbase entry, Hu-manity.co has been covered in TechCrunch, Forbes, NPR, Inc., the Washington Post, and others. 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)JimMacLeod (talk)— JimMacLeod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This user has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest regarding this topic. As such, I have terminated his editing privileges under WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 12:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of the coverage alleged by JimMacLeod. Please link to these articles so that they can be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about Hu-manity.co TechCrunch 1, TechCrunch 2, Forbes, NPR, Inc., VentureBeat 1, VentureBeat 2, The Washington Post, and others. JimMacLeod (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jim MacLeod is listed as "Associated Founder: Brand Excellence" at https://hu-manity.co/who-we-are/ Џ 05:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: typical startup coverage -- Forbes.com/sites, TechCrunch, VentureBeat -- along with passing mentions do not establish notability under WP:NCORP / WP:ORGIND. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NPR, The Washington Post, television coverage, invite to the UN, deal with Liberia, IBM partnership, and a deal with Syracuse University are not “typical" of startup coverage JimMacLeod (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) NPR: "Hu-manity.co is also trying to establish a system in which people can sell their medical data to pharmaceutical companies." - Just a mention, not significant coverage. 2) Washington Post: Two sentences about the company and two sentences about the co-founder's opinion, Richie Etwaru. It's one of six interview bits included in the article amongst the names Adam Tanner, Jodi Daniel, Roger Wilson, Jennifer Miller, and Steven Joffe. 3) Television coverage: An interview with the co-founder on a local ABC channel - not independent coverage. 4) Invite to the UN: A Business Wire press release. 5) Deal with Liberia: It's on the AP News website but it isn't from an AP writer, it's labeled as a Business Wire press release. 6) IBM partnership: Is "according to the press release" from IMB. 7) Deal with Syracuse University: Straight from the University website. Џ 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage displayed within the reliable sources (note, for a couple of interviews there's significant non-interview bits in the latter half) is well beyond that of WP:ROUTINE in enough of the sources to allow WP:NORG to be satisfied. n.b. This !vote is made in awareness that my sole fellow keep !voter is certainly a COI. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Џ 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [I am the activist behind the 31st human right & CEO of the company] Lots of comments here about validity. This is a movement/company that has thousands of customers, relationships with Fortune 500, relationship with academic institutions globally, contracts with governments, and a team of dedicated and passionate people from all over the globe. By all means delete if this is the general consensus, but wanted to address validity. As a data point, we have one of the lowest CrunchBase scores of most startups (currently 785). We have applications in both Apple and Android stores, users in over 70 countries, and have presented at the UN.Richieetwaru (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)— Richieetwaru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep very important company. Book luver36 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)— Book luver36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Though voting my way, I feel I should point out that Book luver36's vote is both non-justified, and also the only edit made by this account. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team, I do not know who Book luver36 is although he/she voted in our favor.67.88.213.2 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for notability Hu-manity.co was mentioned on Fox Business on 17 January 2019 during a segment focused on Apple CEO Tim Cook's commentary on data privacy. The analyst stated that Cook's views do not go far enough to protect users. He mentioned that Hu-manity.co is working to solve the issue of data ownership. JimMacLeod (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That mention is no good "R. 'Ray' Wang, MPH, CEO at Constellation Research, Inc., and Hu-manity.co Advisory Board member"[17] Џ 01:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for user Џ with questionable motive It should be noted that the user Џ is anonymous, has only posited negatively on other blockchain companies, and positively on one. For the group's consideration. First post from Џ after the Hu-manity.co post was created, and most of the "activity" are highly easy to make - deletes.50.29.194.50 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — 50.29.194.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Besides being completely wrong, it should be noted that this IP is from New Jersey, which is where the company is located. Џ 02:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this is Richie Etwaru. Not sure why it does not show my name. Here is my address and phone number. I stand behind the entry, and the claims made my others. I live at 22 Crown view, court, Sparta, NJ, 07871. I can be reached at 1.917.403.0642. And if it makes sense, richie@hu-manity.co. I want to reiterate, if the entry does not meet policy, lets delete. But we CANNOT be trolled by biased Џ. Richieetwaru (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. User Џ is acting on what they think is best to protect and grow the encyclopedia, so words like "trolled" and "biased" should be used sparingly. You seem to have the makings of a good editor if you are not a one-issue (or one company) user. And you may want to nix the personal data above. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep, (EDIT: although not if the page was started by someone who gets a paycheck from the company) seems to have established sourced notability. And per above comments. Would urge the main editor to take the UN declaration edits to its talk page and not revert (see Wikipedia bold, revert, discuss guidelines). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia (until 1871)

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

The subject article wholly duplicates existing material in the History of Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C. and District of Columbia retrocession, adding nothing of substance or detail. The City of Washington and Port of Georgetown were separately incorporated entities within the District of Columbia until 1871, when they were absorbed into the District. The subject article, entitled "District of Columbia (until 1871)”, is intended to cover the purportedly distinct history of the District during the pre-1871 period. But the story of today’s Washington, D.C. – as set forth in existing articles – necessarily and already comprehends the complete history of the District of Columbia, from its conception and founding in the 1780s and 1790s to the present day.

To the extent that the de jure unification of the “City of Washington” and the “District of Columbia” in 1871 was a watershed event or had other practical significance, or may have resulted in important material being omitted from existing articles, Talk page discussion has been unproductive in teasing any of that out; and in the end no meaningful reason has been provided why a separate article devoted solely to the District, qua District, prior to 1871 is warranted. I am proposing “Delete”, but “Redirect” or “Merge” may also be appropriate if discussion here identifies unique or heretofore un-covered issues that can be accommodated in existing articles. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have an article on the District of Columbia. This seems so obvious to me, as I said before, I don’t understand the opposition. Here are things about the District of Columbia that exist right now:

The District of Columbia government has a web page: http://dc.gov. The city of Washington government does not have any page, that I can find.
Federal courts are “for the District of Columbia”: https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/
Dictrict of Columbia Public Library: https://www.dclibrary.org
According to the federal government, the unit is District of Columbia: https://www.usa.gov/state-government/district-of-columbia. The mayor of Washington DC is the Governor of the District of Columbia.
The District, not Washington, has a Department of Motor Vehicles: https://dmv.dc.gov
The District of Columbia runs the school system, according to its web page. There are no city of Washington schools, to my knowledge: https://dmv.dc.gov
The law enforcement agency is the “Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia”. (District of Columbia Police).
The local courts are District of Columbia courts, not Washington courts: https://www.dccourts.gov
There is a University of the District of Columbia: https://www.udc.edu/about/campus-map/. There is no university of Washington the city.
The laws are in the District of Columbia Code: http://dccode.elaws.us
District of Columbia is mentioned in the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which creates electors (as in Electoral College) for the District of Columbia, not the city of Washington.

To say that the District of Columbia does not need a page, that a forward to the Washington, D.C., page is sufficient, seems to me really off base. deisenbe (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All those items are described at Government of the District of Columbia, and in more condensed fashion at Washington,_D.C.#Government_and_politics and throughout. The former includes outbound wikilinks to more than a score of articles on specific DC Government agencies, including the libraries, schools, courts, mayor's office, police, corrections, and parks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has it never occurred to you that the solution to duplication in, say, the History of Washington, D.C., is to take material _out_ of the Washington article? And how can you have an article on the Government of the District of Columbia, without an article on the District? deisenbe (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Washington, D.C. is the COMMONNAME for the District of Columbia. "Washington, D.C." is the "District of Columbia" article. (COMMONNAME is why District of Columbia redirects to Washington, D.C. and not vice-versa.) It wouldn't make much sense to take material out of the articles that are, in fact, about the District of Columbia in order to put them into some other article about the District of Columbia. JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content worth keeping not already at History of Washington, D.C.. Holy shit, "The capitol of the U.S. in Virginia? The New England states would have none of that." is embarrassing. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wasting my time, and yours I suppose, but I stand on WP should have an article on the District of Columbia. The original district, as in Boundary Markers of the Original District of Columbia. It sticks out like a sore thumb that there isn't one. Articles on Washington D.C. are not a replacement. Until 1871 Washington was not the COMMONNAME. My point is not that the information isn't there, it's that it's in the wrong place, not correctly organized. Like saying there's no need for an article on Manhattan, because it can be dealt with under New York City. But I'm dropping the matter. And I'm not embarrassed. deisenbe (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand the point made by trying to split the articles, but there's only ever been one District of Columbia - it's not as if there was a new entity which was created upon the municipal merger in 1871. The only thing which changed was the COMMONNAME. It would be a good point to split a history article if that were necessary but that doesn't seem to be the case. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a valid distinction between "Washington" and "District of Columbia", as well as the formerly independent "Georgetown" for that matter. It's clear from the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 article that the city(s) and the district were politically merged at that time. So any distinction is purely a historical matter. But I take User:Deisenbe's point that a separate article covering the history of DC up to 1871 would be a good thing, if only to clarify these very issues about the proper name and political organization of the District prior to consolidation. Yes, Deisenbe created the article and wrote all of it, which he or she might have disclosed here in this discussion. Yes, the article needs some work. But structurally, I think he or she is correct. --Lockley (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just found and put in a neat animated map showing the evolution of the District of Columbia. deisenbe (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB this map is already featured at District of Columbia retrocession. JohnInDC (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, there is an abundance of well-developed articles already in the encyclopedia about the District of Columbia, as well as about the important formative and transformative events in its history. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 covers its creation; District of Columbia retrocession covers the 1846 events that changed its original boundaries; and the District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871 covers the abolition of the separate entities of the City of Washington and the Port of Georgetown. Also again, Washington, D.C. is but the COMMONNAME for the legal entity, the "District of Columbia", the existing history of which naturally and inextricably includes all events back to its formation in 1801, through 1846 and 1871 and up to the present. (And which is laid out in pretty fine detail at History of Washington, D.C..) The District of Columbia and its complete history is amply covered in existing articles and we don't need another to cover an essentially arbitrary subset of its history in no greater detail than what is present. Now - what may be lacking is an article about the separate "City of Washington", which existed as a separate political entity within the District from 1801-1871. We have an article on Georgetown (Washington, D.C.), which covers its period as a separate entity within the District; likewise there is one for Alexandria, Virginia, which likewise discusses its brief history as part of the District - but City of Washington redirects to Washington, D.C.. Which isn't, in fact, the "City of Washington". There is no separate article for that entity, which - for 70 years, had its own history, and, no longer exists today. I haven't looked in all the possible places for material that bears on that entity (there may be some) but whatever may be already here pales in comparison to what is already present on the District of Columbia, and, to the extent that the information is scattered here and there, it may be profitably pulled into a single article, and expanded. If something is missing here, it's material on the City of Washington, not the District. Making yet another article about the District is fixing the wrong problem. JohnInDC (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JohnInDC, I agree with you that there's plenty of articles around this topic. I can't agree that they amount to good coverage in separate places. For instance the History of Washington, D.C. is never exactly clear (that I see) about the distinction between the federal district and the federal city, or their relative sizes. Many times it seems to treat those two entities as interchangeable names. Another example, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, has only a sidelong reference to the city boss Alexander Robey Shepherd, who dreamed it up and pushed it through, and nothing to say about why consolidation was a hot issue to begin with. To me these are additional reasons why the historical entity District of Columbia (1801-1871) deserves its own article. --Lockley (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That requires clarification in the existing District of Columbia articles, not creation of a new one which virtually by definition cannot be anything but a redundant subset of the existing ones. Washington, D.C. is, legally and literally, the "District of Columbia". And it's the "original" District, established in 1801 (as shrunken in 1846), not some newly-minted 1871 entity. The history of "Washington, DC" is the history of the "District of Columbia" all the way from 1801 through to the present day. The article, History of Washington, D.C. is detailed and comprehensive. If it is vague around the edges, then we need to tighten it up. We do not need yet another article, about an arbitrary period in the history of the District. Indeed what would we add to that new article that we 1) don't already have and 2) can't easily incorporate into what we've got? Now - by contrast, there is "City of Washington", which was formed in 1802, and abolished in 1871, and which was within, but separate from, the District of Columbia; yet there is (so far as I know) no separate article about that erstwhile entity. If there is more to be said about these entities during their period of separate incorporation (a point on which I'm not yet persuaded), I can't for the life of me see why we'd create a seventh or ninth article about the District, and let the City continue to languish as an afterthought. JohnInDC (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, the article is now expanded and copyedited since its listing here on Jan 4, which I hope has addressed some of the concerns expressed above. --Lockley (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lockley did a very good job of cleaning up the article, particularly in copyediting and imparting the proper tone. The essential concerns remain, however. The article is redundant, with its substance entirely and more thoroughly covered by existing articles; and its purpose as a standalone article is as inarticulable as it was before. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JohnInDC, but with respect, there's a bit more to it than that. Interested editors are invited to see for themselves. --Lockley (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per WP:GEOLAND (which I cannot believe has not been invoked yet). This is a confirmed name for a former inhabited polity (i.e., the District of Columbia as it was before 1871). FOARP (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhhh because we're not talking about notability here? The District of Columbia has always been the District of Columbia – it's the City of Washington that changed from being downtown only to being a merged entity with District of Columbia, and the History of Washington, District of Columbia, naturally includes the history of the coterminous District of Columbia. This is just redundant. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The District of Columbia not a "former inhabited polity". It is a current inhabited polity. The "former" was the City of Washington, which passed from formal existence in 1871 and - almost inexplicably - has no article anywhere in the encyclopedia. I think it'd be great if someone wrote that one. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of historical issues worth considering and covering here. Especially since Alexandria, Virginia was for a time part of this entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course such historical issues are worth considering, but this does not explain why these issues need to be duplicated in a separate article. Alexandria is certainly not left out of History of Washington, D.C.! Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional relevant discussion at Talk:District of Columbia (until 1871). deisenbe (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect for District of Columbia that sends everyone to Washington, D.C. As I see things, it should go. deisenbe (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary This disussion has died down. I'm going to try to move things along by putting down what seems to have emerged from it. This is not any one person's position.

According to the discussions here and on the talk page, we need:

A new article on the District.
A new article on History of the District.
A new article on the city of Washington, until 1871.
Move material from the existing Washington, DC and History of Washington DC articles into these.

Once this is done,

Deletion of the District --> Washington DC redirect.
Deletion of the History of the District --> History of Washington DC redirect.
Deletion of the present article on District until 1871.

Comments? deisenbe (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well this is certainly a strange AfD. Normally AfD discussions come down to a rough yes or no question, does this article belong in wikipedia?. The central question here is more like do the names and contents of a bunch of District of Columbia & Washington DC articles accurately reflect their co-mingled histories, and what about this one, relative to all of those?, which is a more time-consuming judgment about the structure and contents of maybe a dozen articles. It's a homework assignment... no wonder the discussion has died down. In my opinion deisenbe's suggestions about re-structuring this set of articles makes good sense, because it clearly differentiates between the "District of Columbia" and "Washington", and provides a basis for systematically untangling those separate entities, which was the whole point. --Lockley (talk) 01:07, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hodl

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

Non-notable neologism. Could easily be covered in any of our cryptocurrency articles. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure yet, actually. I removed the first PROD, because the word has clearly reached the mainstream. But it could do with a few more mainstream sources. Also not sure if it quite rates "dicdef, Wiktionary" (where it is already) - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "could easily be covered" in something else could apply to any of thousands of terms we have in Wikipedia. If it has been dubbed one of the "essential slang terms in Bitcoin culture" then it should have an article. Therefore, the basis of your nomination that it is non-notable is clearly incorrect. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a merge/redirect would be better, but I'm not sure where. Glossary of cryptocurrency terms or Glossary of cryptocurrency memes don't exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, it's basically the notable one! - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to be quite a popular term right now; I see significant coverage in the media. More specifically, folks are talking about Hodl being old and replaced by a new term – Buidl – which has been trademarked too: here and here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a dictionary entry. Definition, etymology, and a couple of minor entries. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary 2601:2C6:4400:C93:6D7A:B158:5F32:96 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a word, not a topic. Fails WP:NOT. R2d232h2 (talk) 14:06, 11 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) 01:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Powell (conductor)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYBIO, with zero WP:RS and appears to be written for WP:PROMOTION purposes. Only coverage I can find is a single interview. Created by same account that created Geraldine C. and Emory M. Ford Foundation, also nominated for AfD on notability grounds. —Madrenergic^talk 14:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:NMUSIC not satisfied unless there happens to be an indication criterion 6 is satisfied (I couldn't see any evident sign). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also need to mention that as a non-tenured faculty, he fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 11 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 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BMW 335 (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page only has 2 entries and is therefore not required per WP:2DABS. (The page also has a number of style errors per MOS:DAB). The primary topic (the first entry, a redirect to BMW 335) already has a hatnote to the other use (the second entry, a redirect to BMW 3 Series (E90)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You would have done us all a favo(u)r of you had entered this bit before you put a deletion flag on the article in question rather than waiting till I had reverted it. But thank you for belatedly sharing your logic. I think the key is your assertion that the page is "not required". You can make the case that the whole of wikipedia is "not required". However, I think the page is potentially helpful. That is a more important test than whether or not something is "required". Wikipedia's most important customers are not the nerdy types - you and me - who contribute to it in our spare moments. We are compiling this thing for the interested generalist who finds he or she knows less than he or she wishes to know about a given topic. For that most important customer, I think this disambiguation page may be more helpful - user-friendly and welcoming - than another tiresome little distracting note at the top of the "wrong" wiki-entry. If you don't like the style, feel free to improve on it. That would be a more constructive use of your skill and judgment, I dare, respectfully, to suggest. But you are, of course, very welcome to think differently. Maybe you do. Success Charles01 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A run-of-the-mill TWODABS candidate. Also, Charles01, a snarky attitude doesn't help your argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't like my attitude. I wonder if you could bring yourself to address the issues? And please, sir! (I still think our friend would have done us all a favo(u)r of he or she had entered his explanation before dumping a deletion application rather than waiting till I had reverted it. I'm sorry if you find that odd. It's an issue of basic courtesy, but it's also an issue of practicality.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked over the recent edit history. You reverted Shhhnotsoloud's prod for no legitimate reason that I can see; the same rationales were given there as are reiterated here. Claiming that WP:2DABS is "private jargon", especially when it was linked and you are an editor of long standing, seems rather disingenuous to me. And I did address the issues, referring to the same guideline as the nominator. You, on the other hand, have not. Your main arguments seem to be it's WP:HARMLESS and "potentially" WP:USEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mindlessly and selectively citing wiki-guidelines is not a substitute for thinking for yourself. There are plenty of lawyers who get paid to do that which is fine. But these are guide-lines intended to help you make wikipedia better - more "fit for purpose" - if you are keen to keep up with contemporary jargon. One can certainly go too far with Jimmy Wales' provocative mantra (I think it was originally he, but the point needs to be made even if it was not) that one should ignore all rules. And yet ... taken together the wikipedia guidelines are stuffed with mutual contradictions and ambiguities that could keep a top lawyer happy for a lifetime (except no one would pay him or her to do it - maybe a top theologian). By all means invoke wiki-guidelines. They're mostly excellent statements of good sense according to the perspective of the helpful person or persons who compiled them. But these are a means, and not things you should ever wish to treat as ends for their own sake. Wikipedia is not a dictator-state with a simple book of rules, and if you try and turn it into that you will - to the extent you succeed - stiffle the thing and, ultimately hasten its demise. Well, nothing lasts for ever ... But please step back, take a deep breath, engage brain and THINK for yourself. Thank you. And sorry (up to a point) to bang on. (I appreciate I may be wrong in this particular example: but simply invoking wiki-guidelines without further discussion doesn't begin to explain why - which you seem to - you think I am wrong.) Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you insult me too. I had to check WP:MOSTEDITS to confirm your background, because your behaviour suggests otherwise. Seriously? This isn't a vital, top-importance article. This is a simple dab page and a simple situation which has consistently been handled the same way all the time, e.g. Santorum (disambiguation), which is also undergoing Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Charles01. --Doncram (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a useful TWODABs page since the BMW 3 Series (E90) page mentions BMW models named 335is, 335xi, 335d, which would lead to confusion about how many 335 models there might be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphan disambiguation page whose navigational function is handled by the hatnote on BMW 335. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per standard procedure with TWODABS. Not needed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 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) 11:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Disambiguation helps orient users. Here we have two (2) items with a similar name. The purpose of orientation can be served, as per typical practice, by placing at the top of each of the two articles a WP:SIMILAR template. -The Gnome (talk)`

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. The best sources from the past AfDs are IB Times and BBC News. Though BBC just has it in the side bar section called "Alt coin mining". It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin. A Daily Dot article was cited by some keeps but it was pointed out that it's an opinion piece republished from someone's blog. End of the 2nd AfD an article from JOSIC is cited but the site doesn't load for me and it probably wasn't a reliable source per the objector's comments. In my opinion IB Times was the only source that can be used to establish notability. Is there anything better? Џ 01:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - negligible mainstream coverage, and the crypto blog coverage is not up to sourcing standards - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a reference check. This has literally zero RSes - mostly primary, one unreliable, two that don't mention Vertcoin at all - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what is this? Why do you want to delete the item due to these citations? Indeed. They are not literary sources, but i think you can hardly expect that for anyrything in the crypto environment currently. High quality primary sources with publically reviewable code is cited. That seems more than enough sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.48.205 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — 62.163.48.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep:
- Vertcoin was mentioned in NBC News , and Investopedia, and is pioneer in decentralized mining since 2014, the first altcoin that forked to remove ASIC, and the coin still keep its vision until now.
- Also, it's much easier for other coins with ICO or premined afford to pay editor to post on mainstream news, while Vertcoin had a fair launch and 0 premined. There's no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainam9 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Tainam9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Investopedia article "3 Obscure Cryptocurrencies to Watch" wasn't written by a staff writer. There are hundreds of "contributors" to the site. NBC article "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" was published at a time when most altcoins were rising. Џ 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Charlton, Alistair (2014-02-05). "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
DeMuro, Jonas (2018-02-03). "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
Popken, Ben (2018-01-03). "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
Ryan, Thomas (2014-04-29). "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". SemiAccurate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
Ward, Mark (2014-04-25). "How to mint your own virtual money". BBC. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

Sources with quotes

Charlton, Alistair (2014-02-05). "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

David Muller's Vertcoin hopes to offer an alternative. By taking the foundations of bitcoin and making some adjustments, vertcoin punishes miners who use powerful machines and work together in 'pools' to monopolise the mining market.
...
As with most cryptocurrencies, vertcoin had an almost worthless valuation when it was created at the start of 2014, but while others have seen small peaks and troughs since then, vertcoin has soared from mere cents to more than $9 per coin, increasing by several hundred percent every day.
...
Because it was only launched earlier this year - and is resistant to industrial-scale mining from powerful computers - vertcoins are somewhat scarce. Due to a lack of bitcoin-style ecosystem of exchanges where coins are traded for real-world currencies like dollars, sterling and the euro, vertcoins are bought in exchange for bitcoins on sites like CoinedUp.com.
DeMuro, Jonas (2018-02-03). "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

6. Vertcoin (VTC)

Vertcoin was launched in 2014, and is similar to Bitcoin and Litecoin, although it’s certainly not as well-known. Vertcoin is open source, decentralized, and has a block time of 2.5 minutes. It also endeavors to be ‘the peoples’ coin’.
In other words, Vertcoin wants to avoid control by banks or other centralized mining powers. It incorporates ASIC resistance, meaning it’s designed to avoid being dominated by mining farms, allowing everyone the opportunity to mine using simple consumer graphics cards.
Vertcoin also utilizes the Lightning Network for instant blockchain transactions. Additionally, the Lightning Network has the ‘Atomic Cross-Chain’ which allows Vertcoin to be exchanged directly into either Litecoin or Bitcoin, decentralizing the exchanges. The creators are also working on ‘Stealth Addresses’ which allows them to provide privacy within the public ledger of the blockchain.
Two other factors contribute to the popularity of Vertcoin. The first is that it has an active community on social media sites, and the other big plus is that it’s easily mined by novices using one-click software, making it highly accessible.
Popken, Ben (2018-01-03). "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

Vertcoin (coin)

Jan. 1, 2017 price: $0.03
Jan. 1, 2018 price: $6.80
Rise: 22,500 percent
One of the criticisms of bitcoin is that it's supposed to be deregulated and decentralized. But "minting" or "mining" more bitcoins requires using increasingly faster and more expensive computers to solve more complex math problems. That puts more power in the hands of those who have the time and money to run the mining systems, especially specialized machines whose sole purpose is mining. Vertcoin is a tweaked version of bitcoin that its developers say is "resistant" to being exploited by some of these systems. That's drawn fans on the social link sharing site Reddit, and soaring popularity over the last year.
Ryan, Thomas (2014-04-29). "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". SemiAccurate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

As a viable crypto currency with a network hashrate of about five Gigahashes per second it clear that mining Vertcoin is a meaningful real-world workload. Consistency and reproducibility are concepts that go hand in hand when it comes to crypto currency. Vertcoin is a Scrypt-N coin; unlike SHA-256 coins or other Scrypt-based coins, Vertcoin offers comparatively low hashrates. Using one of AMD’s HD 7970’s will net you about 650 Megahashs per second mining a SHA-256 coin. That same GPU will mine a Scrypt-based coin at about 700 Kilohashes per second and it will mine Vertcoin at about 350 kilohashes per second. We believe that extreme difficulty of the algorithm behind Vertcoin will allow it remain relevant through successive generations of new GPUs.
Vertcoin is unlike a lot of other coins in that the user’s options for tuning their miners are far more limited than with other coins. There are really only two relevant settings when it comes to tuning a Vertcoin miner: intensity and thread concurrency. As a good starting point to find the right thread concurrency number for your GPU you should take the number of cores and then multiply that number by four. Because Vertcoin’s algorithm requires double the amount of memory as other Scrypt coins we then are going to double that thread concurrency number. In the case of your HD 7970 that means we’re using a thread concurrency of 16384.
The author of this SemiAccurate article, Ryan Thomas, is also a writer for PC World.
Ward, Mark (2014-04-25). "How to mint your own virtual money". BBC. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

Vertcoin's developers have modified its mining algorithm which generates the coins. Despite its name, mining actually involves getting a computer to search for the answer to a hard mathematical problem. The miner who finds the answer typically gets rewarded with newly minted coins.
Mr Houlihane liked Vertcoin because, he said, it is designed to be hard to mine with dedicated processors. The rise of these purpose-made processors have made it all but impossible for the vast majority of people to mine Bitcoins. The mining is dominated by groups that have tied together hundreds of dedicated processors with which the average home miner cannot hope to compete.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are generic me-too coverage on a list. None of these stand out as evidence of NCORP, they're all "uh also these guys" - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit, you falsely marked Џ (talk · contribs) as an SPA. Can you explain your rationale for this action, based on Џ's contributions? - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Џ account was created 22 December 2018, four days before the start of this AfD. I agree that this is not a single-purpose account since this is a returning editor. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources 1) IB Times article by a staff writer that I said was okay in the nomination. 2) Article titled "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin" written by Jonas DeMuro. His most recent articles are "Best payment gateways of 2019", "Best mobile card payment reader of 2018", and "Best merchant services of 2018" and he has many more like that. I don't think any of these low effort list articles establish notability. 3) Article titled "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" published when most altcoins were rising in early 2018. How did the writer decide what to include or is it another low effort list article with no new information? 4) Article titled "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". Is this not a primary source? They link this article which is a review that used vertcoin to test mining performance and I guess some asked why they used vertcoin so they publish an article on why they like vertcoin. 5) I went over this in the nomination: "BBC just has it in the side bar section called 'Alt coin mining'. It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin." Still so far, it's only the IB Times article that I think helps establish notability. Џ 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the articles in TechRadar and NBC News to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" that provide detailed analysis about Vertcoin, not "low effort list articles". I do not consider the article in SemiAccurate to be a primary source just because SemiAccurate "used vertcoin to test mining performance". They did not create or develop Vertcoin. That they "publish[ed] an article on why they like vertcoin" and why they are using it as a benchmark is significant coverage in a reliable source independent of Vertcoin.
Cunard (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be part of the vertcoin team for the source not to be independent. WP:Identifying and using independent sources says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." They were mining vertcoin at the time and could have profited if it went up in value. Џ 07:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SemiAccurate's mining of Vertcoin was to "quantify the relative performance of GPUs". This is standard journalistic research. Vertcoin might go up in value and make the Vertcoin they mined in their research more valuable. I do not think standard journalistic research should render SemiAccurate an unusable source for notability. But even if SemiAccurate is disregarded, there is still sufficient coverage to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin participants who have been active in the last year: Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), Dialectric (talk · contribs), Valoem (talk · contribs), Lewis Hulbert (talk · contribs), Ariel. (talk · contribs), Kb3edk (talk · contribs), Cryptic Canadian (talk · contribs), Pburka (talk · contribs), King of Hearts (talk · contribs), Agyle (talk · contribs), and ONaNcle (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (2nd nomination) participants who have been active in the last year: Jonpatterns (talk · contribs), Mark viking (talk · contribs), and Spirit of Eagle (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the work above describes exactly in terms that are entirely generic to other 100's of cryptocurrencies that exist, and have no special meaning outside those cryptocurrency companies. The premise seems to be based on the tweak to their algo to favour GPU's, isn't enough for standalone notability, as the reason for the high cost of NVidia cards is due to the miners emptying the shelves, and Vertcoin arent the only cryptocoin company that favours GPU's, against FPGA or ASIC's. So a solid Delete by WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak arguments, please be more specific about the algorithm tweak, Vertcoin invented Lyra2REv2 and how many coins copy that algorithm? High cost of NVIDIA card is irrelevant here. Also, if you think Vertcoin is a company, your don't understand crypto-currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainam9 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC) — Tainam9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep because it seems to be little more then advertising platform. I fully realize and agree with User:Cunard that there does exist enough sources to make an article. Deletion is not the path for clean up but hopefully one of the Bit Coin experienced editors take notes and helps maintain it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I read your response did you mean keep here? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem I meant to strike my deletion rationale in favor of a keep. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I corrected it for you. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin was the subject of articles in International Business Times and SemiAccurate. It received significant coverage in TechRadar, NBC News, and BBC. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The articles contain detailed analysis of Vertcoin. For example, TechRadar says:
Two other factors contribute to the popularity of Vertcoin. The first is that it has an active community on social media sites, and the other big plus is that it’s easily mined by novices using one-click software, making it highly accessible.
Hell in a Bucket notes that the topic has sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article and that deletion is not cleanup. I agree per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Cunard (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this refactoring, which I am reverting, this is not a "long comment" and this does not say the same thing. This is my response to editors' comments and further elaborates on my "keep" comment.
Cunard (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the response. I want to make sure that my rationale is clear. Subject is notable, I think it has largely been advertisement (my deletion reason) but I do note that with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion (not my rationale because it is established policy deletion is not for cleanup). I am on the side that they are not all bit coins are inherently notable but consensus has seemed to be that they are in the previous discussions so here we are :). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you did not see this response, which earlier had been moved up the page.

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), I agree that "with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion". I rewrote the article with the sources I presented here. Would you reconsider your "delete" position? Thank you,

Cunard (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard, I can support the changes you made to the article, it looks much improved and while I still have reservations it won't be turned back to an ad platform over time by others, I'm comfortable enough with it as is to change to Keep noting that any article could have the same issue and shouldn't be the final determiner. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), for reviewing the article and reconsidering your position. I agree that the article might be "turned back to an ad platform over time by others", so I've put it on my watchlist. I have many articles on my watchlist so may overlook promotional edits that get through. I encourage more editors and admins to watchlist the page so that promotional edits can be reverted and the page protected if necessary.

Cunard (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source provided prove that this cryptocurrency pass Wikipedia's GNG. From what I understand have articles regarding specific coin may influence their trading behavior. I cannot help but notice that there maybe a financial motive for the removal of articles involving this subject. Here are some additional sources:

Brewster, Thomas (2017-11-08). "This Russian Has The Power To Turn 100,000 Android Phones Into Cryptocurrency Miners". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

to make much money from his miners so far. Indeed, he said that despite having as many as 103,000 live installs across his applications, and tens of millions of historical downloads, only 5,000 had enabled the feature. A cryptocurrency account found by Tanase showed Khripov earned the equivalent of $1,150 in Magicoin as of Tuesday. The developer was mainly focused on Magicoin, as well as Feathercoin and Vertcoin, amongst other lesser-known, alternative currencies (better known as altcoins).
Georgiev, Georgi (2018-02-03). "VERTCOIN 51% ATTACK COULD HAVE CAUSED $100K IN DOUBLE SPENDING". bitcoinist. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

6. Vertcoin

It’s worth noting that Vertcoin’s mining algorithm is deliberately geared against ASIC and ASIC-like devices by making them particularly inefficient. Instead, mining on the network is designed to be achieved solely through commonly available graphics cards. This is supposedly an attempt to hedge against mining centralization.
Drake, Ed (2018-12-01). "Vertcoin loses over $100,000 in 51% attack: report". CoinGeek. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:

Vertcoin

Vertcoin (VTC) has fallen prey to a 51% attack, with some estimates suggesting losses have already surpassed $100,000 as a result of double spend transactions on the chain. It is the latest example of a 51% attack, where attackers take control of a majority share of a network, reflecting the inherent weaknesses in the proof of work model.

As per Cunard there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article just mentions it once as one of the coins mined so it isn't significant coverage. The other two are cryptocurrency news sites and one of the outcomes of WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk was that it shouldn't be used for notability. Though technically the RfC was just for CoinDesk I doubt other cryptocurrency news sites would get a better outcome. Џ 08:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is another source about the subject:
1. Kim, Il-Hwan (December 2018). "Feasibility Analysis of Majority Attacks on Blockchains". The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers. 67 (12). Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers: 1685–1689. doi:10.5370/KIEE.2018.67.12.1685. ISSN 1975-8359. Retrieved 2019-01-03 – via Nurimedia.
  From the abstract:
  In this research, 51% attack or majority attack is becoming an important security issue for proof of work based blockchains. Due to decentralized nature of blockchains, any attacks that shutdowns the network or which take control over the network is hard to prevent and assess. In this paper, different types of majority attack are summarized and the motivations behind the attacks are explained. To show the feasibility of the majority attack, we build an example mining machines that can take control over two of the public blockchains, Vertcoin and Monero.
  From the article:
  5.2.1 Vertcoin (VTC)
  
  Vertcoin is a PoW blockchain based on Lyra2rev2 algorithm [11]. It is known to support atomic swap, which is a way to exchange Vertcoin with different PoW based coins. MAs that delays transactions are dangerous for atomic swap, as it uses hash time locked transaction. Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack.
  From the "Conclusion" section:
  ... Finally, feasibility analysis also show that our machine could have launched majority attacks for Vertcoin and Monero using the hashrate of 1.92 and 2.4 Ghash respectively. ...
  Here is the journal article's author's biography:
  Il-Hwan Kim
  
  He received B.S. and M.S. degree in the dept. of control and instrumentation engineering from Seoul National University in 1982 and 1985 respectively and Ph.D. at the Tohoku University in 1993. In 1995, he joined the dept. of electrical and electronic engineering at the Kangwon National University and is currently a professor
That Vertcoin has been the subject of academic research strongly support its notability.
The full-length article in International Business Times and the significant coverage in the journal The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers, TechRadar, and NBC News is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 5 reliable sources, one even from BBC. Quick search turned up plenty more results. Passes WP:GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More cryptospam in violation of G11 and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies Bkissin (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am an established editor who has no conflict of interest with Vertcoin. I rewrote the article. Please explain how this article is "cryptospam in violation of G11 and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Valoem and Redditaddict69. However, I see what looks like many new users popping up here just for this !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cunard: Do you have free access to the Korean engineer article? It wants me to pay to see the blurred pages. Also do you know the exact date it was published? Џ 02:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the article. It was published in December 2018. There is no exact date provided for when it was published. Here is what the source says:
출처: 전기학회논문지 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)

(Source): The transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)
The article also notes:
Corresponding Author: Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Kangwon National University, Korea.

E-mail: ihkim@kangwon.ac.kr

Received: October 22, 2018; Accepted: November 3, 2018
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found a free access version. Their "feasibility analysis" is based on hashrates from 2014. Any coin could have been easily 51% with present day machines if you go back far enough. It may have been worth mentioning if it was based on the current hashrate, especially since Vertcoin did get 51% attacked by the time the paper was published. The best use I see is adding the quote "Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack" to contrast with all the positive things those list articles said. Џ 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a good addition to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources identified provide substantial coverage. A few mentions does not meet the WP:NCORP requirements. R2d232h2 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user.
Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. The sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Sample: "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin": David Muller's Vertcoin hopes to offer an alternative. Etc. Etc. This is all about company's hopes and aspirations & does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism masquerading as an encyclopedia article based on equally promotionalist sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated: the review of sources provided above confirms that this page is cryptocurrency 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requesting that this stay open for a little longer to wait for responses. @Redditaddict69: What are those search results then? @Rsrikanth05: You said "Keep per Valoem and Redditaddict69." Did you see my response to @Valoem:'s comment? Do either of you have anything it say about it? Because it essentially invalidates those three extra sources. Џ 05:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps someone can reduce the walls of horribly formatted text. Please have pity with the closing admin...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too find Cunard's wall-of-sources unconvincing on close examination - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All source provided clearly pass our GN guidelines. I understand that cryptotraders want to limit the control of specific currencies due to financial reasons, unfortunately we cannot remove notable articles simply to curb the influence on trading. The coin passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard's sources show that the topic passes WP:GNG. Balkywrest (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request : The practice of quoting extensively from sources makes the already strenuous project of AfD even more so. As I recall, practitioners of extensive quotation have been asked to refrain from it or, at least, use it sparingly. Let me applaud your efforts, fellow editors, since they clearly go above and beyond the call of duty, as they say, but please, pretty please, with sugar on top , help! There are hundreds of AfDs always going on and the wide adoption of such a practice would seriously impede their progress. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I absolutely appreciate the effort that goes into this sort of research, but please understand that being so verbose makes it more difficult to comprehend. The human brain is wired to understand things in chunks. If you can't see an entire comment at once, it's harder to understand it. I'm working on an absurdly large 5K monitor, and some of the comments in this AfD are still too long to get onto a single screen without scrolling. It's going to be even worse for people on smaller screens, laptops, tablets, or even phones. Let me suggest a compromise; if you're going to provide these long quotes, at least wrap them in Template:Collapse blocks. Then, anybody who wants to read the whole thing can unhide the quote, but it's not eating up gobs of screen real-estate all the time. And, before you object to the idea that anybody would want to edit on a phone, consider that for a good chunk of the world, mobile devices are the only way most people access the internet. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has been asked repeatedly not to filibuster AFDs in this manner. It may be time to collect examples and seek behavioural remedies if he continues to work so badly with others - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. It has come to the point that I hesitate closing a debate if I see that Cunard is participating. It's just not worth my time to wade through all that widely-spaced text. --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "filibuster" denotes sinister intentions. Let me be quite clear about that and state that I've never detected anything beyond zeal. And that's not simply because I observe WP:AGF but because Cunard's extensive quotation is evidently meant to support their view and not to "delay or entirely prevent a decision." -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good suggestion, RoySmith (talk · contribs). I have implemented it on this AfD.

Cunard (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Cunard, that's great. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a Wired Germany article: "Vertcoin fell victim to a 51 percent attack/Vertcoin wurde Opfer einer 51-Prozent-Attacke". Before anyone else comes in to say "keep per sources", could you say which ones? To me only IB Times, Wired Germany, and the Korean article (lesser than the previous two) can help establish notability. SemiAccurate may be a reliable source but I don't think the article "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin" (Why we like mining Vertcoin) is independent. The TechRadar, NBC News, and BBC articles are closer to minor coverage. Who would still want it kept if there was only that kind of coverage? Џ 15:02, 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 keep. bd2412 T 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry

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

This was already deleted through an AFD discussion with unanimous consensus. At that point already the "rivalry" was inactive. A really can't see what has changed since then that makes this subject suitable for having an article. T v x1 13:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is plenty of evidence that this is a notable rivalry (just flick through the citations), as unlike the previous article that existed and was deleted (which you seem to not realise is entirely different to this one) there are various reputable sources and news publications which describe and analyse the rivalry in-depth. If that is your only argument for deletion (that it does not meet notability requirements) then I disagree, as does the evidence and coverage referenced in the current article, which I will reiterate, is entirely different from the previously deleted article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Formulaonewiki (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given by the 'unanimous consensus' in the previous ADF discussion, which was, and I'll say it again, a completely different article to this one, was that the subject matter was not notable. However, this is simply not true. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" and just a quick search reveals a huge number of articles covering the rivalry. Just a few of the many examples can be found here, here, here, here and here as well as just a quick glance through the 50 citations used in the article itself. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article is currently being discussed at the F1 WikiProject because of concerns over the neutrality of sources, even those that come from normally-reliable publications. Large parts of the article rely on sources from the British media, and there is a question of bias. For example, Hamilton caused controversy recently, but the only reporting done on the subject by a major British-based source is an opinion piece defending him. I also have serious WP:NPOV concerns about the article; for instance, the lead goes out of its way to portray Rosberg as the privileged son of a former champion and Hamilton the underdog who got through on sheer grit; the article arguably favours Hamilton. 1.144.111.7 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP 1.144.111.7, your observations seem to confirm that the subject is significantly covered in reliable sources, even if their opinion goes against your own. And as WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list", that supports a keep rather than a delete. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DeFacto. Surely your observations are evidence that the article content is notable. How about we work together to improve the article instead of just deleting it entirely because of your WP:NPOV concerns? Let's be productive, not destructive. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll be constructive if articles are necessary. And I don't see how this article is necessary. Especially when Prost/Senna or Schumacher/Hill don't have dedicated articles. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I cannot see any policy-based argument that supports deletion, and given that there is plenty of coverage of specifically this title in reliable sources (you only need to click a few of the links in the header line at "Find sources:" to see that) I think it easily passes the notability test. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a policy-based argument has been made—there are NPOV issues present and some of the sources are questionable. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not deletion policy reasons for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON), they are trivial "because I don't like it"-type reasons, which, even if it was agreed that they actually existed, are easily fixable. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV issues stemming from the sources fits DEL-REASON. This article is not neutral; it clearly takes Hamilton's side. The sources used are not neutral; they clearly take Hamilton's side. There has been no attempt to find balance in the sources—look at the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: it takes the time to give weight to Niki Lauda's defence of Hamilton (without explaining why Lauda though Hamilton was in the right), but does not explore any criticism of Hamilton's actions. Or look at the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix, which strongly implies Rosberg deliberately ruined Hamilton's qualifying lap, but only offers "several pundits" opinions' as sources. Or look at the language used throughout the article: "a perfect start", "a thrilling race", etc, which is not language suited to purpose. Or the analysis I did of a lead paragraph here. I read this article and all I see is a one-sided representation of the subject which barely meets the notability guidelines, if at all. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching rather a lot with that 'analysis'. Seems like you're also pushing your own agenda/POV on the article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's there in black and white. Hamilton did something that was subject to criticism at the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix. However, the article only offers Lauda's defence of him. It should also offer the criticism of him so that the reader understands the issue. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP 1.144.108.197, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, let's be productive and improve the article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I think deleting the article is the most productive thing to do. The time and energy that would be spent rewriting it could be better used developing more important articles. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was it being a "productive thing to do" part of the deletion criteria? --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It breaks WP:BLP. I could go through and remove everything that is not neutral because it is clearly pro-Hamilton, but the article would be little more than a stub. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP 1.144.108.197, I can't see where you think it breaks BLP. Please give one specific paragraph or sentence as an example. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto — WP:BLP says the following:

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies"

Those three core policies are WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. I believe this article breaks BLP because it fails NPOV, as evident in this paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix:

When Rosberg, on fresher tires, closed the gap to Hamilton, Mercedes asked the British driver to move over, knowing the German would have to pit again before the end of the race. Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Niki Lauda spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right."

This breaks NPOV because it only speaks in support of Hamilton. It offers a single opinion supporting Hamilton's actions, but does not offer any justification for that opinion. The article really should address the following questions:

Who is Niki Lauda (it is the first time the article mentions him) and why do his words carry weight?
Why did Lauda think Hamilton was in the right?
Who, if anyone, spoke against Hamilton, and what were their reasons?
How did Hamilton and Rosberg address the issue in public?
How did Hamilton's decision affect his relationship with Rosberg?
What measures (if any) did the team take to manage them in future?
How did those measures (or lack thereof) influence the relationship?
How would Hamilton slowing to allow Rosberg through affect his race, and what did Hamilton think the effect would be?
What did the team expect would happen if Hamilton let Rosberg through as planned?

As it is, the article details an incident in which Hamilton disobeyed team orders, and his decision affected the race result. In providing a defence from Lauda, the reader can infer that his decision was controversial (why else would Lauda need to defend him?). However, the article only provides a defence of Hamilton and so the reader may come to the conclusion that Hamilton's actions were justified. That to me breaks NPOV because it is leading the reader to a conclusion: that Hamiltion defied team orders, got a better result out of it, and that he was completely justified in doing so. 1.144.108.211 (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NPOV is not a delete rationale, at least not primarily. This rivalry clearly passes WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NPOV might not be a primary reason for deletion, but this article is at least in part biographical, and NPOV is a cornerstone of BLP. The majority of the sources used in the article come from British publications despite the rivalry being between a Brit and a German, and I have concerns that their coverage is one-sided. For example, Hamilton made some comments recently that were controversial, but Autosport—one of the major publications used by WP:F1—did not report on it. They rarely report on any criticism of British drivers? How can we say this article meets GNG when the sources are one-sided and of questionable neutrality? 1.144.108.118 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP 1.144.108.118, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. You should go to the article talkpage with any reliable sources that give a differing view, and argue the case for an adjustment of the POV balance there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.108.118, the argument you are making about NVOP is clearly a content discussion, and not relevant here. Additionally, you are wrong in saying Autosport did not cover the controversial comments, as shown here. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have completely ignored my extensive discussion of how the article fails NPOV. 1.129.105.118 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not ignored, just disagreed with. An unsupported challenge to the balance of a small portion of the content is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable subject, it is something that needs to be discussed on its talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an example of moving the goalposts. You asked for "one specific paragraph or sentence as an example" of how the article breaks BLP. I did exactly that, demonstrating how the article fails NPOV and by extension BLP. But apparently that's no longer good enough. 1.129.107.93 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I wanted clarification of what your idea of NPOV was, and having seen it, I am not persuaded that you have a case. You are comparing what's written in the article with your personal views and interpretation of history, and not with the views of notable commentators via other reliable sources - that's OR/SYNTH on your part, and not NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren MCL33 stops recounting the car's performance after the 2018 British Grand Prix. Would you agree that there are gaps in the article? If so, how is that different to this article? Niki Lauda offers an opinion which the article repeats, but does not explain. Surely you agree that this is a gap in the article. Do you not see how this might create an NPOV issue? Especially considering which pages link to the article; it is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article and mostly just lifts content from there. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some points are incomplete and even if that does render them as non-NPOV, that is an entirely different matter to the article being irreconcilably non-NPOV and requiring deletion. Take the points you are concerned about to the article's talkpage, along with any supporting reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see any signs this rivalry is notable. ~~Not~~ a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title. Maybe the sources mention a rivalry (which might be logical as they were teammates). This discussion on this page is far to detailed to be encyclopedic and the comments above by both sides of this looks like WP:BLUDGEON. Maybe if there is a couple of google books entries that chronicle the rivalry, but if we are just going to us industry dribble about two drivers this is far too low a bar for inclusion in wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: did you click any of the links next to "Find sources:" in the header of this discussion? There you will find ample sources, specifically covering this rivalry, demonstrating notability per WP:GNG. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Surely you can't be serious? Literally the first source of the whole article is titled "Lewis Hamilton-Nico Rosberg rivalry: A timeline". --Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: one source does not automatically make a subject notable enough to have an article of its own. 1.129.107.159 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously; nobody is saying that. All I did was point out that the statement "Not a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title" was wrong.--Formulaonewiki (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there is one source, not zero. I corrected that. Every F1 teammate is a rival of his other teammate. Shall we create rivalry pages for all F1 teammate pairs? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are more that have rivalry in the title, and even more than that with rivalry in the body of the citation. I said the "the first source of the [...] article" includes 'rivalry', I didn't say it was the only source, did I? And no, we should not create rivalry pages for all team-mate pairs, no-one suggesting that. The only time we should create a page for team-mate pairs is if there are multiple sources which give evidence of the notability of said pair. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there is no dedicated article for the Senna and Prost rivalry. Unlike Hamilton and Rosberg, there were accusations and admissions that Senna and Prost had deliberately crashed into one another to settle World Championships.

This article, however, consistently takes Hamilton's side. In Hungary 2014, the article defends Hamilton's decision to defy team orders; in Monaco 2014, the article criticises Rosberg's actions without sources; in Spain 2016, the article clearly suggests Rosberg was responsible for the contact (by pointing out the speed difference) despite the stewards' ruling.

Between the lack of sources, the inconsistent approach to notability compared to other similar subjects, lack of links to any other articles, and the clear bias that the article shows, where is the redeeming value of the page? 1.129.109.94 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The existence, or lack thereof, for an article concerning the rivalry between Senna and Prost is not relevant to this discussion as explained at WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.

(2) Any NPOV of this article does form part of the criteria for deletion. That is something to be discussed on the article's talk page.

(3) There simply is not a 'lack of sources', as I've already explained WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't relevant, links to other articles are plentiful and NPOV is not criteria for deletion.

--Formulaonewiki (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly explained—and as you have repeatedly ignored—this article contains biographical elements (it is largely biographical), and so is subject to WP:BLP. WP:NPOV is a key part of BLP. Given the obvious and extensive bias—the article clearly favours Hamilton—it fails NPOV, which means it fails BLP and by failing BLP, it satisfies a criteria for deletion. Could you explain how this article does not fail NPOV? You can start with this part:

"Several pundits made suggestions of foul play and drew comparisons with Michael Schumacher's deliberate crash at La Rascasse in 2006, but the stewards cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing."

Despite suggesting that several commentators made the comparison, the article does not provide a single source to support the claim. And without detailing why the stewards cleared Rosberg, the implication is that Rosberg deliberately crashed despite the stewards seeing nothing wrong with it.

"links to other articles are plentiful"

Only one page links to the article. It's practically an orphan. 1.129.109.101 (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, remove or rework the contentious material, NPOV does not form part of the criteria for deletion of the whole article. I don't understand why you keep giving examples of NPOV here when I'm not refuting that it's not written perfectly, and it's just not relevant. Also, read what you said: You said 'links to other articles', not 'links from other articles'. It's not a moot point; it isn't an orphan. Either way, that is also not relevant to these deletion discussion. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be deleted on BLP grounds, though. One can even be speedily deleted on such grounds in extreme cases. Nevertheless Jtbobwaysf and the participants raise a fair point though. The drivers have spent ten simultaneous seasons in Formula One, yet this article only deals with a mere four of them. If their "rivalry" is nothing more than a strong competition between teammates in by far the most competitive car at the time, than how can this be claimed to be an important rivalry? If it's nothing more than that, it's just not suitable for a dedicated article. Incidents that relate to one individual race can be dealt with in the articles on those races and more lasting things in the season articles and the drivers' articles. Just what makes this more important than Hamilton-Bottas rivalry, Hamilton–Button rivalry or even Hamilton–Alonso rivalry? And what with Schumacher-Hill rivalry, Schumacher-Villeneuve rivalry, Schumacher-Häkkinen rivalry, Schumacher-Montoya rivalry, Schumacher-Alonso rivalry?T v x1 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"remove or rework the contentious material"

I could, but the article would almost certainly be deleted for a sheer lack of content.

"This is just a sample of some of the many sources covering the subject."

Do you have anything more international in its flavour? A lot of the sources you are drawing on are British and relate to a British driver. As I have outlined, I think there are genuine concerns about partisan reporting. If only British sources call it a rivalry, is it really a rivalry?

"If their 'rivalry' is nothing more than a strong competition between teammates in by far the most competitive car at the time, than how can this be claimed to be an important rivalry? If it's nothing more than that, it's just not suitable for a dedicated article."

Taken in context, I have to wonder if the rivalry was fabricated—Mercedes have absolutely dominated for the past four years and the racing is often boring (least of all following the brilliance of 2010 and 2012). Building up strong competition into a "rivalry" is a way of getting bums into seats. If we compare Rosberg and Hamilton to the sport's benchmark rivalry—Senna and Prost—it's pretty pale. 1.144.110.123 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a convincing argument and not relevant to this discussion. But to answer your question, what makes it 'more important' — or more specifically, notable and worthy of an article — is the number of sources (which are evident in the article, but have also been highlighted in the discussions above) covering, examining and documenting the rivalry. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you have said sounds like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The article is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article and is loaded with NPOV issues. It's borderline WP:CRUFT. You haven't even tried to demonstrate the notability of the subject; you just assume "oh, there's a few sources out there so it must be notable enough for an article" without even critically thinking about the sources. It's pretty obvious that you're a Hamilton fan and the article is a defence of him; every time a controversy is discussed, the article goes out of its way to explain why he did nothing wrong. This article has no redeeming value. 1.144.110.104 (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should also have a read of WP:IDLI too. You are making a ridiculous set of wild and just plainly wrong accusations. What on earth do you mean I haven't even tried? I have literally provided a list of news articles from reputable sources that all pass WP:RS, all of which have been critically considered. I have provided evidence in accordance with the notability guidelines as laid out in WP:PERSON, while you a contributing no more than meaningless and unjustified opinion and penning conspiracy. Also, while as you are enjoying conspiracy so much, it's worth pointing out how your edits from that IP look very much like sock puppetry. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I have literally provided a list of news articles from reputable sources that all pass WP:RS, all of which have been critically considered."

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the article would be balanced. I raised concerns about the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian GP days ago which you haven't even bothered to address beyond claiming that you don't need to address it.

"it's worth pointing out how your edits from that IP look very much like sock puppetry"

My situation and why I edit from IP addresses is well-documented. I don't need to justify it to you here because it has nothing to do with this AfD. 1.129.106.104 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement makes no sense. I'm not disputing the POV of the article. What I've done on this page is provide a list of reputable sources that all pass WP:RS. I have proven that the article subject is notable, but has nothing to do with the state of NPOV in the current article.
Once again you are making strange links: I don't need to address your point on the Hungarian Grand Prix because I do not disagree with what you have said, as I've already stated. You make a valid point in terms of NPOV, I only questioned it's relevance to the discussion for deletion.
Whatever your justification for using multiple IPs to edit, it would avoid issues like the appearance of pump priming if you sign off from whatever IP addresses you use with at least something consistent that links a comment from you from one IP to another; otherwise it is unclear which IP edits are yours and which are not. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of WP:RS for this article. By definition, you need to exclude those that are passing mention or simply refer to the rivalry as a definition. Thus how many top quality mainstream RS exist (nyt, bbc, etc) that actually have a book or news piece that covers the rivalry. I think you provided one (low quality industry rag that had the rivalry in the subject) above and another editor noted this article is essentially an orphan. Is there any real justification to keep it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News:

The official Formula One website:

Rosberg vs Hamilton - their most dramatic moments to date

ESPN:

Lewis Hamilton-Nico Rosberg rivalry: A timeline

The Telegraph:

There have already been examples given of sources that are not just 'low quality industry rags', but all these ones I've just given are more than acceptable under WP:RS. This is just a sample of some of the many sources covering the subject. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll make a start by analysing the first few articles I provided:

These articles are all from BBC News, a secondary, independent source; all articles are 'published' from a well-established and reputable news agency which directly concerns the article's subject (explicitly referring to and describing the 'rivalry' between the drivers), not just mentions it in passing, with elaborations and accounts of various incidents occurring between the pair and the history which stretches back over two decades. They also contain direct quotes and analysis from experts within the sport such as Toto Wolff and David Coulthard. They conform with WP:RS and WP:V and therefore plainly demonstrate that the article exceeds the threshold for notability and should not be deleted as such. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To offer an alternative point of view, this article is largely biographical; unlike most biographies, it focuses on two people and only four years of their respective careers. Nevertheless, it is biographical and thus WP:BLP applies. A key part of BLP is WP:NPOV and this article fails NPOV—and thus breaks BLP. Take, for instance, the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: the article makes it clear that Lewis Hamilton defied the team's orders and offers a source in which someone (whose authority is never defined) defends him as having done nothing wrong. However, the article does not provide any alternative (if Hamilton needed defending, someone must have criticised him, but this is absent from the article) and nor does it substantiate the defence of him (why, exactly, did he do no wrong?). This is just one example of NPOV issues in the article; there is a clear, conscious bias in favour of Hamilton. His failings are downplayed while Nico Rosberg's are exaggerated. Formulaonewiki has made no attempt to address this (beyond claiming he does not need to) and has instead been eager to point out that the sources provided meet WP:RS and WP:VER, but those sources are cherry-picked. In writing the article, he has only chosen sources that present Hamilton in a positive manner. These NPOV issues are so systemic that large portions of the article would need to be removed to the point where there is no substance to it. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator has asked for analysis of sources provided, which you have not done. You have instead repeated the exact points you made earlier, and once again are making edits from multiple different IP addresses with no attempts to make any indication that it is the same user.

I have rewritten the contentious sections you highlighted in order to achieve NPOV, and so it should no longer be an issue. It must be pointed out how much you are exaggerating the extent of NPOV issues, which in reality only concern a couple of the on track incidents, in saying they are "so systemic that large portions of the article would need to be removed to the point where there is no substance to it". Regardless, they are fixed now and therefore there should be no problem with WP:NPOV, even if it were relevant to the deletion discussion. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed? Not even close. The entire article needs to be rewritten. You haven't even tried to introduce a range of sources. This article is about a rivalry between a German and a Briton, but the majority of sources are British sources. You need a wider range for balance, given the partisan reporting by British sources. If all you are relying on is British sources, then the question has to be asked: is this really a rivalry, or is it just strong competition that has been exaggerated by media with an agenda?

On top of that—as has been pointed out—it only focuses on four of the ten years they were racing together in Formula 1 (and even then, only on races where there was an incident between them). Aside from a mention of their karting days, there is no coverage of any other time they were racing together. If this is, as the article suggests, a rivalry that started in their karting days, then at best the article covers about 40% of what it needs to; at worst, that number is closer to 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.242 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We certainly shouldn't have articles on every topic that meets GNG, especially where there are existing articles in which the information can be contained, or where the subject irredemably falls under WP:NOT, WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK or similar. However I don't see that to be the case here. There is certianly precedent for articles on rivalry between two individuals:
Federer–Nadal rivalry and Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson are both Good Articles

So there is no inherent problem with rivalry articles of this type, and there are clearly enough suitable sources to write an WP:NPOV article (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Discussion on the neutrality of sources should proceed on the article's talk page or project page.--Pontificalibus 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would note that the article creator and deletion nominator have both made their points, and should consider whether further interventions on the same points might now be bludgeoning the process.--Pontificalibus 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON is 1) an essay, 2) garbage given how often it is misused, 3) Against the spirit of WP:NOTAVOTE, since it essentially acts as a bar of involvement by a smaller number of editors in a discussion with a larger number. A better essay is needed simply pointing out that repeating yourself all the time might not be a good idea. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 9 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 Needi Naadi Oke Katha. Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venu Udugula

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

may not be notable, so xfd instead of csd to get consensus ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 01:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Venomous Sniper: which notability criterion do you think the subject fails, and why? Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I think it does not fufill this criteria. Commercially sucessful film does not mean that the film is notable in any way. As shown from WP:FILMMAKER

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

No part of this criteria states that a commercially sucessful film is a notable/significant one. A commercially successful film may only mean that that work that is prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on salability, profit. This is just my opinion, that's why I created an afd instead of directly nominating the article for csd.
‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 03:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Do you think, given the sources and coverage, that the subject passes WP:BASIC? Bakazaka (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, I don't think that the person mentioned in this disputed article meets this criteria of WP:BASIC

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

From the sources, it only states that "Venu Udugula" made a debut ot direct the film "Needi Naadi Oke Katha". To be fair, only a tiny bit of the sources mentioned that it is notable that the film is successful. However, as mentioned above, the film being successful can mean many other things. Indeed, the film is notable that it is widely received by crtics & fans. But this does not immediately imply that the people behind the scenes is sucessful. Why is there no independent article of the screenwriter? He/She is the one that did the most work according to the amount of hours spent of the film, the director is only there to make the movie "nice & well perceived by the audience", without the scriptwriter, will this film even exist? Will the director be notable in this case? Pardon my harsh tone & sorry if I sound rude, this is only my POV.
‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 09:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I think I understand your nomination rationale now, and I appreciate your willingness to explain. Bakazaka (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of Needi Naadi Oke Katha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talk • contribs)
Weak keep I am very uncertain about this one. Does he meet WP:DIRECTOR? He has only made one film so far - is it "significant or well-known"? It only came out this year, so I'm not sure. The reviews of the film (from the article about the film) are so-so: "If you ignore the slow pace and predictable storyline, this film ends up as an interesting watch" [18], "the film is refreshingly natural in its emotions and deserves to be seen. If you can ignore the fact that the film lags in parts and has a few chinks here and there, then give it a try this weekend" [19], "Such films should be encouraged for the content and honesty in storytelling, though they have limited appeal." [20]. Those reviews also have comments about the directing, which should be included in this article if it is kept: "Venu Udugula shows promise and with a little more sharpening and embellishment in the script, he could be a name to reckon with." [21], "he makes an impressive debut with this film. He chooses a very contemporary subject and narrates it in a very relatable manner which everyone can justify with. His hold on the emotions is very good and the manner in which he brings out performances from his star cast is quite brilliant." [22], "The debutant director Venu Udugula has managed to put together a film that stands out from the rest, so kudos to that." [23]. The reviews of the film itself, and the directing, would incline me to WP:TOOSOON.

But then, in the references for this article, we have four media sources (The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, The New Indian Express, The News Minute) running stories about his next film, all including his name in the headline, which does suggest that they consider him notable. Does he meet WP:BASIC? Although some of the sources in this article have more about the actors who will be in his next film than about him, there is one [24] which does have more info about him (more than is in this stub, currently). So overall, probably keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Needi Naadi Oke Katha per RGreen. TOOSOON. ∯WBG^converse 07:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Needi Naadi Oke Katha. While he's only known for one film and there's so little to say about him, a redirect there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 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 delete. Tone 09:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geje Eustaquio

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:NMMA - have not fought top tier promotion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. I dunno how an article of 24 references with reliable sources as diverse as ABS-CBN Sports, Philippine Daily Inquirer and Channel News Asia can fail WP:GNG, granted half of the other references are MMA-centric sources which I can't vouch for... Howard the Duck (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. This should have been speedy deleted as a repost of the previous recent AfD discussion which got it right with respect to both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.PRehse (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He hasn't done anything to become more notable since the deletion in late August of this year. He still fails to meet WP:NMMA. In fact, he hasn't had a fight since June. There are a lot of references given, but there's still a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Coverage is predominantly about upcoming ONE fights and results, which can only be considered as typical sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG satisfied. I have added three in depth references on this person's activities outside getting beat up (and beating other people up). That should be enough whether or not he passes WP:NMMA. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added an article from the sports.inquirer.net's daily column on ONE FC about him wanting to become a pro mountain biker, although there's no indication he's ever competed in biking at any level, and it's entirely based on an interview with him. And you added a link to where his MMA team came out against bullying. I don't these are enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Most of the coverage is typical sports reporting or not independent. The coverage that isn't one of those two does not rise to the level of showing that the GNG is met--interviews, passing mentions, etc.Sandals1 (talk) 19:17, 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. Similiar as with Firestorm (novel) here. Discussion was all over the place, where multiple proposals were made: Merging as a WP:ATD, which was not supported by anyone, speedy deletion becasue of copyright violations which were fixed, and Cunard's listing of sources for passing WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK that was not supported or rebutted. If the nominator is not satisfied with the sources posted, feel free to renominate this in few weeks/months again. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Hell

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. The text of the article is also straight-up copy pasted from its only source Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Nearly notable for having the article. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G12, clear copyvio of [25]. Ifnord (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copyright violation, which was added in 2013 here, five years after the article had been created.
Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Green, Roland (2008-12-01). "Wings of Hell: Starfist". Booklist. 105 (7): 38. ISSN 0006-7385.
  The review notes:
  
  Wings of Hell: Starfist. By David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Dec. 2008. 368p. Del Rey, $23 (9780345500991). In company with a strong force of army and fellow marines, the battle-hardened 34th FIST now grapples with a major attack by the alien Skink. Though Sherman and Cragg nicely flesh out both sides, they focus on the 34th in combat and at the rear, where a couple of NCOs are in the middle of star-crossed love affairs. Yet the most engaging part of the novel follows the adventures of Moses, a human-raised Skink baby rescued by the skin of his teeth from being an experimental animal, who is now, just possibly, key to future relations between humans and Skink. An impressive addition, the thirteenth, to a fine series.
2. "StarFist: Wings of Hell". Publisher's Weekly. 255 (45). 2008-11-10. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  
  In the rousing 13th novel (after 2007’s Firestorm) featuring the 34th Fleet Initial Strike Team (FIST), the interstellar marines have returned to their garrison on Thorsfinni’s World, where they catch up on R&R and get ready for the next round against the mysterious alien Skinks.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wings of Hell to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Booklist and Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for analysis of sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't notice this was relisted once before, so no prejudic on early closure - Courtesy ping for CaptainEek Ifnord Anatoliatheo who may not have seen above. Nightfury 15:21, 4 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 Political positions of Ron Paul. There's clear consensus here to not keep this. Between the possibilities of delete, merge, or redirect, there's no real agreement. Merge seems like a reasonable compromise. I do note that the sole argument to keep was, at least in part, based on arguments put forth in earlier AfDs. Given that those AfDs were 7 or more years ago, it seems like they shouldn't carry much weight today. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. An enormous part of this article is either unsourced or poorly sourced. At this point, this Wikipedia page just looks it's a mirror of one of Ron Paul's personal websites. What little sourced content on this page which does not already exist on Political positions of Ron Paul and Ron Paul can simply be merged with those two pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. When someone has been in government for a long time, they are bound to sponsor legislation (hopefully!). The legislation feeds into the political positions, makes more sense for the two to be in one article. Bkissin (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any time an article is listed again for deletion after having been kept, the nominator really needs to read those discussions carefully and respond to the arguments raised in them, not act as if they are the first to speak. The prior AFD discussions clearly kept this as a WP:SPINOUT, and article splitting is clearly endorsed by the sole guideline the nominator cites (without explanation as to why he thinks it calls for deletion here). It is not a POV fork nor redundant to any existing article. As for sourcing, the vast majority of entries clearly identify the bill in question. Those entries that do not can obviously be improved, or if proven not verifiable, removed. So as I see no valid argument for deletion here, keep. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need RS to demonstrate WP:DUE for those bills. We don't just add every single bill, no matter trivial it is to Wikipedia just because it's a bill. I will add a comment that specifically addresses past RfCs (the last of which was 8 yrs ago). -- Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd day that "just because" is a terrible reason for keeping an article. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration on why I want this deleted: I've been asked to comment on the three past RfCs (which occurred between 2007-2011, i.e. during Paul's presidential campaigns). The first RfC (Dec 2007) wanted a merge with Ron Paul but most respondents insisted the main article was too large to be merged. None of the editors, except the last respondent in the AfD, considered merging it with Political positions of Ron Paul which can easily accommodate whatever non-redundant and well-sourced content exists in this one (Pol Pos of RP is also filled with poorly sourced text). In the second RfC (April 2008), the filer argued for deletion for JUSTDONTLIKEIT-style reasons and wanted a merger with the main article. 'Keep' editors point out the weak reasons for deletion, point to the old 'Keep' consensus, and reiterate that the main article is too long to accommodate this content. Several of the 'Keep' votes seem bizarre, as they insist that the content covered in the article is notable for the mere fact that Ron Paul is notable (much of the specific content fails the most basic WP:DUE standards that are now in place in editing on American politics: no RS). The third RfC (Jan 2011) wanted a merge with the main article, and some of the 'delete' votes appear motivated by a dislike for Paul (and his fans) whereas numerous 'Keep' votes insist that because Paul is himself notable that all of this legislation must be too. So, looking over these RfCs, the first reaction is "Wow, Wikipedia sure has changed". The difference between my RfC and the ones from a decade ago is that I'm very clearly and explicitly noting that most of the content on this page does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia because it's either unsourced or poorly sourced and thus fails WP:RS and WP:DUE (arguments that no one explicitly laid out). The content that exists on this page could never be included on an American politics page with a sizable readership today because WE.DO.NOT.ALLOW.UNSOURCED/PRIMARY.CONTENT. Also, it needs to be kept in mind that Paul was at the time running for president, so while all this poorly sourced content may have seemed incredibly important back then, it sure isn't today. I also don't want to criticize the people who voted in those RfCs but it has to be said that I was struck by how few of the 'keep' or 'delete' votes seemed policy-based. Maybe the standards have just gotten stricter in the last 10 yrs in American politics. If WP:SIZE is a problem for merging, then the solution would simply be to scrub both Political positions of Ron Paul and List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul of all poorly sourced content (and there is a lot). The two articles could then easily be merged without fear of violating WP:SIZE, and I would even bet that the merged article would be smaller than either of two status quo articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're conflating two things: "unsourced primary content" is an oxymoron because primary sources are sources. What purpose they are reliable for is no more complicated really than secondary sources, and government documents are certainly available to the public and verifiable (a cite to a bill is just another form of legal citation). So if we are just sourcing that the bill exists with certain content and that Paul was its sponsor (not using the bill's content to make claims about the external world), then the primary source is not only reliable but authoritative. Now whether that bill is notable would depend on secondary sources existing that discuss it. There is no requirement that entries in a list be individually notable (though at least some of those here would be).
  I don't see that WP:DUE necessarily applies here, because as I read that it's more about the weight of POV rather than the level of objective detail about a topic. I do think that there's a reasonable question about where to draw the line regarding which politician merits this kind of list, but we shouldn't base that just on the present state of his political career rather than its peak, and this kind of page is not inherently problematic because it's clearly verifiable (though I don't know how easily to make comprehensive) and WP:NOTPAPER. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. Per nom. Listcruft and hero-worshipping, and I see little evidence that the legislation Paul has attached his name to -- as an actual topic -- has gained any media or historical traction. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this kind of in-depth treatment is necessarily hero-worship; a critic of a politician may be just as likely to want to document what they've been involved with as a supporter. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul of the sponsoring that's actually relevant. Functionally all politicians sponsor laws - we don't need lists for all of them, even those laws/sponsoring that get coverage. Merging will be tough - The Political positions article is pretty big, but the relevant sponsoring is going to have to be dragged out a couple at a time and dropped into the appropriate spot. There is already a bit of duplication. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the 3rd AfD has some of the weirdest Keep justifications I've ever seen accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is mindless trivia by somebody who was never a serious national candidate. This is a list of legislation by a legislator ideologically adverse to legislating. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 11 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 17:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safeer Qureshi

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

The person is not notable. References given in the article are ALL press releases, and a Google search didn't yield results otherwise. Csgir (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. —teb728 t c 00:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability, including having received significant coverage from multiple, independent sources.Coastside (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a COI by the creator and missing notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet the notability criteria. Reddragon7 (talk) 11:24, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Pearn

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. There is a claim to notability due to her husbands, but notability is not inherited. The Jackson source (British Women and the Spanish Civil War) mentions her only in passing in the context of her "lesser known novel" and for being someone's wife. The two portraits of her (painting and photograph) were both made becasue she happened to be someone's wife. Pontificalibus 13:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She definitely meets WP:AUTHOR #3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The fact that the only review cited in the article is from a blog does not mean that reviews in reliable contemporary sources do not WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources we need to find evidence of them. I tried but with no luck.--Pontificalibus 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What an absurd nomination. Check Google Books, for example this.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that source in my nomination, which you appear not to have read. It doesn't discuss her in detail outside the context of her being the wife of a notable husband.-- Pontificalibus 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add the sources I found as citations (and some quotes from reviews). I found them by searching the British Newspaper Archive, initially (I have not yet searched academic journals). Searching on Google by her nom de plume and the titles of her books, I do find some sources, for example British Women and the Spanish Civil War [26] and some results in Newspapers.com, eg [27] (no content visible without a subscription, which I have, and will also search), an index to The Spectator for the first half of 1946 (again needs a subscription, but shows that a review exists), etc. Google doesn't have access to all digitised newspapers and journals, so is not a good indication of contemporary coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am revising the article, so it may look rather unfinished as I move and edit content. I note that this article was only 2 days old when it was AfDed, and it went straight to AfD without being tagged for notability, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that substantial coverage of her life is based on what she herself achieved. It is the mention of her husband that is in passing. It is immaterial whether a description of her life is on account of just one of her books. As for the portraits, I'm not sure they contribute to an assessment of her notability but they are relevant to an article about Pearn as a person. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, article reflects this with references and reviews of her works. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep books got reviewed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCity Guides

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

Not enough coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination; article is very skimpy too.TH1980 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail general notability. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of WP:GNG and doesn't have enough coverage Reddragon7 (talk) 11:29, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Gray

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

Article serves mainly as a resume for this reporter, and was originally created by a user banned for editing with multiple accounts. Athene cunicularia (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the GNG, since her career is one that reliable sources have paid attention to. That a capsule biography of a writer reads a bit like a resume isn't a fatal problem, since after all, both a resume and a biography report a person's accomplishments. (This article is certainly better in that regard than the interminable stream of marginal academic bios created by doing Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V on a CV.) Whatever the original creator did wrong, the article is independently justifiable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per XOR'easter and WP policy. Bio subject clearly notable based on references already in article, to which (WP:BEFORE shows) more could be added. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 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) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portman Dentalcare

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

Notability is not inherited, most sources about it are really about Sam Waley-Cohen but with mentions of the company. It has made some acquisitions, but the coverage is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are six independent national sources. It's now clearly one of the largest dental business in the UK and growing rapidly.Rathfelder (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass notability guidelines for companies. Skirts89 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coverage in citations is referential, not primary, at best. Refers only to Sam Waley-Cohen at worst. This feels like it fails both WP:PROMOTION and WP:CORP. Skirts89 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The dental trade press is not interested in Mr Waley-Cohen. They are interested in the company's acquisitions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some source analysis:

[28] - decent source about the company
[29] - hard to tell as in foreign language, but looks reliable
[30] - about Waley-Cohan, passing mention
[31] - about Waley-Cohan, passing mention
[32] - basically the same info as the first source
[33] - not sure dentistry.co.uk is a RS
[34] - article about gender pay, has a 3 line passing mention
[35] - local coverage
[36] - looks like a rehashed press release, Reuters do a lot of reposting press releases. So not independent in my opinion
[37] - not sure dentistry.co.uk is a RS

So in summary, there's a couple of decent sources but rest are local coverage or only passing mentions. This is why I believe it fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dentistry.co.uk is the trade paper for the dental business. It's as good a source as you will get for dental businesses. The very short Reuters article doesnt appear to be a press release. And I dont think it's proper to ignore local coverage by regional papers, in both Oxford and Oldham, of an organisation like this. Nor do I see why you want to discount the Times article about the gender gap. It certainly isnt promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not only is the Times article behind a paywall (WP:PAYWALL), but it seems like the article only refers in passing to the founder of the company. This does not indicate notability. This article does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the (WP:PAYWALL) guidance says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." But actually there is a bit in the Times article which is above the paywall for all to see, and it mentions the company as well as him. On your analysis there are 3 significant reliable independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - difficult to see what the problem about notability might be with a chain of 80 dental practices worth over £300 million. Oculi (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a UK company that is growing, with many already established dental and orthodontic practices joining the company in the last few years, and clearly notable within the UK dentistry profession. It is often the case with successful companies like Portman that they only generate media coverage in the trade press, in this case dentistry.co.uk, and in the financial news - regarding acquisitions. Significant secondary sources are going to be sparse in the absence of controversy or questionable practices. Deleting this article would be, in my mind, rather premature. Poltair (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Severely lacking article; we know dental chains usually do financing for procedures, and otherwise the article was 'the guy founded it and cashed out, and acquired a bunch of small practices along the way'...then just a bunch of scattered information about openings, their acquisitions here and there, and random organizations they offer discounts to. If any article ever needed a complete fixing-up, it's this one. It's a painful and random read that does nothing to inform us why this company is notable outside 'they acquired a bunch of companies, won some awards, and hey, jockeys can get their maws fixed up at a discount'. Nate • (chatter) 00:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged by independent coverage. Its not necessary to establish some unique properties. It's notable and gets coverage because it's one of three companies transforming the dental industry in the UK. Rathfelder (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please source the claim then. 'Transforming the dental industry in the UK' is at best hyperbole. At worst, it's complete marketing hot air. We're not here to promote businesses. Nate • (chatter) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned previously, many of us don't really think the coverage is that notable. I only see one source I consider notable. You have created hundreds of articles about random health clinics, and this article is no different. Skirts89 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. The whole point of the article is about the change to the dentistry business in the UK. This company has grown from 8 practices in 2011 - which in itself was pretty revolutionary for a business based on corner shops - to at least 80 today, and something similar has happened to the 2 named competitors. I dont see how we can cover the dental industry in the UK without including this. And I cant see how this article can be described as marketting. Dentistry UK is the main trade source, and it's as authoritative a source as I can find for dentistry. There will never be much detailed coverage of dentistry in mainstream media, but this has had coverage from Sky News, the Indy and the Sunday Times. No doubt the jockey made the story more attractive, but that does not mean we should discount it. Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this company to meet WP:ORGCRITE.

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. Will recreate as a redirect per the last suggestion since it does seem like a plausible search term for the company. RL0919 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoho Survey

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

Run-of-the-mill survey software. The sources consist of an advertorial, an example of reference fraud and another advertorial-like article. The article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NPRODUCT. » Shadowowl | talk 11:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedy: Non-notable promotional glurge arguably falling under G11. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Zoho Office Suite. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:16, 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 redirect to Boeremag. Editors are free to merge content from the article history if felt to be appropriate. Michig (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Pretorius

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

subject seems to fall under WP:BLP1E / WP:CRIME and content should be redirected to Boeremag. References listed mention him in passing and seem to focus on his children, who have no article of their own. Spike 'em (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Delete - A searched turned up no significant coverage of the subject. Also, the 3 references now in the article do not show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Per nom, ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boeremag - strictly speaking, Nom should have started a merge request, since the content isn't actually in the target article (only one of his sons). His coverage, both in-article and elsewhere, is enough to satisfy non-article coverage levels to be mentioned. I'm a little unsure why @AuthorAuthor: !voted delete rather than redirect or merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So noted, Nosebagbear. !vote is now Redirect. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:11, 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna Sparks

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

No notability established Hughesdarren (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable to be included in Wikipedia. --Binod Basnet (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May not be notable as an actress alone, but seems to be when combined with cryptocurrency advocacy. More references:

Brenna Sparks Blasts The Concept of “Technical Analysis” for Cryptocurrencies (January 2, 2018),
Pornstar Brenna Sparks endorses Bitcoin [BTC], Spankchain [SPANK], and ARK [ARK] (June 2, 2018),
NSFW: After The Corporate Hype, Porn Gets Into Blockchain (August 2, 2018), and
Developer of $VIA coin goes to Vegas to fulfill alt-season prophecy (August 28, 2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all crypto blogs, and several are blatantly pay-for-play - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about Vice [38], [39], International Business Times [40], and Las Vegas Now [41]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Vice articles "We Asked Porn Stars How to Avoid Getting an STI" and "How to Talk Dirty in Bed, According to Porn Stars" are not independent coverage about said porn stars. International Business Times "Bunny Ranch Brothel Plans To Accept Bitcoin" and Las Vegas Now "I-TEAM: Las Vegas strip club accepts cryptocurrency" is slightly better but the focus is not on her, just asking for her opinion. Џ 02:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, WP:TOOSOON at absolute best - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn as either an adult actress or a pundit. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Interviews, soundbites on crypto blogs/news outlets and the like (ambcrypto.com, bitcoin.com, chepicap.com) do not establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Џ 02:07, 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 based on coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoNote

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Declined PROD. Reason was: "Main source is original research, other two sources barely mention it, final source is non-reputable." I concur. Monero's probably notable, but this protocol it's built on shows little sign of independent notability outside the crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a nn topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ruffing, Tim; Moreno-Sanchez, Pedro (2017). "ValueShuffle: Mixing Confidential Transactions for Comprehensive Transaction Privacy in Bitcoin". In Brenner, Michael; Rohloff, Kurt; Bonneau, Joseph; Miller, Andrew; Ryan, Peter; Teague, Vanessa; Bracciali, Andrea; Sala, Massimiliano; Pintore, Federico; Jakobsson, Markus (eds.). Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops, WAHC, BITCOIN, VOTING, WTSC, and TA, Sliema, Malta, April 7, 2017, Revised Selected Papers. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 137–138. ISBN 978-3-319-70277-3. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The book notes:
  
  CryptoNote. The CryptoNote [35] design is the closest to our work in terms of provided privacy guarantees. CryptoNote relies on ring signatures to provide anonymity for the sender of a transaction. An extension of CryptoNote is fully compatible with CT [27] and has been implemented in the cryptocurrency Monero [28]. In contrast to ValueShuffle, an online mixing protocol is not required, and a sufficient anonymity set can be created using funds of users currently offline.
  However, CryptoNote’s use of ring signatures comes with two important drawbacks for scalability. First, CryptoNote essentially performs mixing on the blockchain and requires each transaction to contain a ring signature of size O(n), where n is the size of the anonymity set. Storing the ring signatures requires a lot of precious space in the blockchain, and verifying them puts a large burden on all nodes in the currency network. In contrast, ValueShuffle performs the actual mixing off-chain and stores only the result on the blockchain.
  Second, CryptoNote is not compatible with pruning, a feature supported, e.g., by the Bitcoin Core client [29]. Pruning reduces the storage requirements of nodes drastically by deleting old blocks and spent transactions once verified. This is impossible in CryptoNote because its use of ring signatures prevents clients from determining whether an transaction output has been spent and can be pruned. A CoinJoin-based approach such as ValueShuffle does not have this problem and is compatible with pruning.
2. Möser, Malte; Soska, Kyle; Heilman, Ethan; Lee, Kevin; Heffan, Henry; Srivastava, Shashvat; Hogan, Kyle; Hennessey, Jason; Miller, Andrew; Narayanan, Arvind; Christin, Nicolas (2018-04-28). "An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain". Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 2018 (3). De Gruyter Open: 143–163. doi:10.1515/popets-2018-0025. ISSN 2299-0984. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Cryptonote: Non-interactive mixing with ring signatures
  
  The Cryptonote protocol [30] introduces a technique for users to obscure their transaction graph, in principle preventing transaction traceability. Instead of explicitly identifying the TXO being spent, a Cryptonote transaction input identifies a set of possible TXOs, including both the real TXO along with several chaff TXOs, called mixins (as illustrated in Figure 1). Instead of an ordinary digital signature, each Cryptonote transaction comes with a ring signature (a form of zero-knowledge proof) that is valid for one of the indicated TXOs, but that does not reveal any information about which one is real. To prevent double-spending, every input must provide a key image that is unique to the output being spent, and the network must check whether this key image has ever been revealed before.
  Several cryptocurrencies are based on the Cryptonote protocol, including Monero, Boolberry, Dashcoin, Bytecoin, and more. We focus our empirical analysis on Monero, since it is currently the largest and most popular, e.g. it has the 12th largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies, over $750M. However, our results are also applicable to other Cryptonote-based protocols (as we show for Bytecoin in Appendix C).
  The article further notes:
  Choosing mixin values in Cryptonote
  
  The Cryptonote protocol does not provide an explicit recommendation on how the “mixins” should be chosen. However, the original Cryptonote reference implementation included a “uniform” selection policy, which has been adopted (at least initially) by most implementations, including Monero. Since all the TXOs referenced in a transaction input must have the same denomination (i.e., a 0.01 XMR input can only refer to an 0.01 XMR output), the client software maintains a database of available TXOs, indexed by denomination. Mixins are sampled from this ordered list of available TXOs, disregarding any temporal information except for their relative order in the blockchain.
3. Noether, Shen; Mackenzie, Adam (2016). "Ring Confidential Transactions". Ledger. 1. doi:10.5195/ledger.2016.34. ISSN 2379-5980. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  Author Shen Noether is a cryptography researcher at the Monero Research Lab.
  The article notes:
  
  CryptoNote and Ring Coin advance the digital signature part of Bitcoin by using “ring signatures” which were originally described by Rivest et al. as a “digital signature that specifies a group of possible signers such that the verifier can’t tell which member actually produced the signature.” The idea, therefore, is to have the origin pubkey of a transaction hidden in a group of pubkeys all of which contain the same amount of coins, so that no one can tell which user actually sent the coins.
  The original CryptoNote protocol implements a slight modification of this to prevent double spends. Namely, CryptoNote employs a “traceable ring signature,” which is a slight modification of those described by Fujisaki and Suzuki. ...
  One possible attack against the original CryptoNote or ring-coin protocol is blockchain analysis based on the amounts sent in a given transaction. For example, if an adversary knows that .9 coins have been sent at a certain time, then they may be able to narrow down the possibilities of the sender by looking for transactions containing .9 coins. This is somewhat negated by the use of the one-time keys used in van Saberhangen’s CryptoNote protocol since the sender can include a number of change addresses in a transaction, thus obfuscating the amount which has been sent with a type of “knapsack mixing.” However this technique has the downside that it can create a large amount of “dust” transactions on the blockchain, i.e. transactions of small amounts that take up proportionately more space than their importance. Additionally, the receiver of the coins may have to “sweep” all this dust when they want to send it, possibly allowing for a smart adversary to keep track of which keys go together in some manner. Furthermore, it is easy to establish an upper and lower bound on the amounts sent.
  Another downside to the original CryptoNote set-up is that it requires a given pair of (P,A) of pubkey P and amount A to be used in a ring signature with other pubkeys having the same amount. For less common amounts, this means there may be a smaller number of potential pairs (P′,A′) available on the blockchain with A′ = A to ring signature with. Thus, in the original CryptoNote protocol, the potential anonymity set is perhaps smaller than may be desired. Analysis of the above weaknesses is covered in Noether et al.
4. Han, Runchao; Yu, Jiangshan; Liu, Joseph; Zhang, Peng (2018). "Evaluating CryptoNote-Style blockchains" (PDF). International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  From https://web.archive.org/web/20190105092134/http://xxhb.fjnu.edu.cn/inscrypt2018/ (after clicking the "Program" link):
  Section 1A (Room 1): Blockchain and Crypto
  Currency Session Chair: Jin Li
  10:50-12:20 (15 Dec)
  
  10:50-11:05: Evaluating CryptoNote-Style blockchains
  Runchao Han, Jiangshan Yu, Joseph Liu and Peng Zhang
  Here is more information about the Inscrypt 2018 conference:
  The 14th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology will be held in Fuzhou, Fujian, from December 14 to 17, 2018, organized by the State Key Laboratry of Information Security of the Institute of Information Engineering of Chinese Academy of Science and the Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Network Security and Cryptology, Fujian Normal University. It is an annual conference targeting the top research results in the related area. Topics of interest encompass research advances in ALL areas of information security, cryptology, and their applications. Inscrypt 2018 seeks high-quality research contributions in the form of well-developed papers. The conference proceedings will be published by Springer-Verlag in LNCS series.
  The article notes:
  CryptoNote [13] has been proposed to improve the anonymity of Bitcoin. In particular, it uses a modified version of traceable ring signatures [3], called One- time Ring Signature, to hide both the payer and payee of a transaction. However, CryptoNote cannot hide the amount of a transaction. Monero4 proposed Ring Confidential Transactions [10] (RingCT), to further hide the amount by using Pedersen Commitment [11].
  ...
  One-time Ring Signature in CryptoNote: CryptoNote utilizes a modified version of Traceable Ring Signature [3], called One-time Ring Signature. In One- time Ring Signature, a public key Pπ and a Key Image I are derived from a private key x. The private key x and its key image Pπ are used to prove that the signer knows at least one pair of public and private keys, while I aims at preventing against the creation of multiple signatures using the same key. Thus, it prevents the double spending attack. The detailed process of One-time Ring Signature is shown in Fig. 1.
  ...
  This section compares the performance-related metrics between CryptoNote and RingCT at the protocol-level, including the core ring signature algorithm and the approaches of achieving anonymity.
5. Maurer, Felix Konstantin (2016). Mayr, Heinrich C.; Pinzger, Martin (eds.). "A survey on approaches to anonymity in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies" (PDF). Lecture Notes in Informatics. 259. Gesellschaft für Informatik: 2145–2150. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  More citation information available on page 80 of the book Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business: 14th International Conference, TrustBus 2017, Lyon, France, August 30-31, 2017, Proceedings at here.
  The article notes:
  
  CryptoNote [vS13] describes a new crypto currency concept. While the basic structure of transactions and the block-chain is the same as in Bitcoin, address derivation and signature generation make use of new cryptographic methods. When transferring coins, the sender A calculates a new receiver address based on the public key B of the receiving party. The matching private key can only be calculated by the owner of the private key B. To spent coins, the transaction output is signed with a one-time ring signatures. These signatures can be veri®ed against a set of public keys without revealing the actually used private key. The most successful implementation to date is Monero.
  CryptoNote provides anonymity for the sender and the receiver. As it is not a mixing service but a completely new currency, it is not susceptible to DoS attacks. However, it is not compatible with Bitcoin without introducing breaking changes. Furthermore, it relies on new cryptographic methods like one-time key pairs and one-time ring signatures.
6. Choi, Wong Seok; Kim, Hyoungshick; Lee, Daehwa Rayer (June 2018). "크립토재킹 연구 동향". Review of KIISC (in Korean). 28 (3). Korea Institute Of Information Security And Cryptology: 33–37. Retrieved 2019-01-05 – via Nurimedia.
  The article notes:
  
  3.1. CryptoNote Protocol
  
  CryptoNote[4]는 개인 정보 보호를 지향하는 암호 화폐 프로토콜로 발신자의 공개키를 여러 다른 공개키 와 그룹화 하여 함께 보내는 방식을 통해 익명성을 보장한다. CryptoNote는 CryptoNight라는 알고리즘으로 Proof of Work를 수행하여 새로운 블록을 생성한다. CryptoNight 알고리즘은 Proof-of -Work를 수행할 때 64바이트의 새 블록을 만들기 위해서 이전의 모든 블록 에 대한 정보가 있어야하기 때문에 메모리가 중점적으 로 사용될 수밖에 없다. CryptoNight 는 한번 알고리즘 이 실행될 때 2Mb 크기의 용량을 필요로 한다[5]. 메가 바이트의 메모리 사용은 ASIC pipeline에 맞지 않기 때 문에 ASIC 방식보다는 Memory-on-chip 방식을 갖춘 CPU에서 높은 성능을 보인다. CryptoNote 프로토콜 기반의 대표적인 암호 화폐는 2014년 개발된 모네로이 다[6].
7. Singh, Aarti; Chawla, Nidhi Kataria (June 2016). "A Review on Strategies for growing E-commerce in India" (PDF). Asian Journal of Technology & Management Research. 6 (1). ISSN 2249-0892. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  2011: Cryptonote Protocol. Inspired by the idea of the blockchain, a group of developers invented a non- Bitcoin technology that theoretically could eliminate the need of trusted webservers for processing transactions, by providing unbelievably strong cryptography through the distributed network
8. Burniske, Chris; Tatar, Jack (2018). Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investor's Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-26-002668-9. Retrieved 2019-01-05.
  The book notes:
  
  Monero is a descendent of a lesser-known cryptocurrency called Bytecoin. Bytecoin was crafted quite differently from Bitcoin, using technology known as CryptoNote. Similar to Litecoin's scrypt, CryptoNote's block hashing algorithm aims to avoid the specialization and therefore centralization of the miners supporting the network by requiring an order of operations that favors general purpose chips like the CPUs found in PCs. Beyond a focus on more egalitarian proof-of-work, CryptoNote provided untraceable payments, unlinkable transactions, and blockchain analysis resistance.49 Adam Back is considered the inspiration for Satoshi’s proof-of-work algorithm and is president of Blockstream, one of the most important companies in the Bitcoin space. In March 2014, he tweeted about CryptoNote, saying it was one of the few ideas in the cryptocurrency space outside of Bitcoin that held a “defensible rationale for existence.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CryptoNote to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for creation reviewer The Herald (talk · contribs) who accepted the article.
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

^[1].
CryptoNote is Monero. That bell can't be unrung.
How is a protocol that currently has a multi-billion dollar amount of value running on top of it somehow not noteworthy ?
What exactly are the references or sources you are expecting to see that are not yet there and why would you not just add them ?
This is absurd.

Aejontargaryen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — Aejontargaryen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

_{Being an editor of multiple topics doesn't make you an expert. It makes you an editor, just the same as a single topic editor. Having contributors who are knowledgeable on the topic is a good thing. I have mainly contributed to this topic because of the apparent lack of understanding of the significance to the technology being discussed.}

Any discussion to be had regarding the swath of additional references and/or logical questions added so far? Aejontargaryen (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cunard

Keep per Cunard. While reviewing, I've thoroughly gone through the citations provided and found all of it acceptable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I initially proposed this article for deletion, I was unaware of the publications as cited above. Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Balkywrest (talk) 04:53, 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 redirect to MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament

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

I became very curious to see whether a random amateur university soccer tournament actually passed WP:GNG as a result of another ongoing AfD, picked this one, and tried to source it better, since the only sources in the article are primary back to the league's webpage. The one source I found that would contribute to WP:GNG: [42]. There are a number of other sources, but all of them are connected to one of the universities participating, and are routine and not independent. Therefore this article fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. I'm happy with a general redirect if a good target is found. SportingFlyer talk 09:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament seems like a reasonable redirect target if this article is not kept. Not going to comment yet on whether it should be. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament. Vorbee (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament per the most recent consensus on this that was closed as a no consensus. I maintain that a general discussion discussing the inherent notability on these tournaments needs to be had, and like the last AfD, this article requires additional citation to meet WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 23:07, 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 09:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheka (musician)

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

No references, looks promotional. Yann (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate relevant sources. They may exist in Spanish, but not obviously so. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have uploaded a lot of poor quality and out of scope files to Commons. See c:Special:Contributions/Jonas0328 and [43]. Yann (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --Binod Basnet (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've erased part of the description with promotional information like "Follow this great artist" and linking to the follow-me page on the uploaded files in Commons. Ganímedes (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable — Racconish ^💬 13:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much found that would count towards notability. There's one (uncredited) album review at Allmusic ([44]), and he was a featured artist on a record that reached at least number 6 on the Billboard 'Latin Airplay: Tropical' chart ([45]), but that's about all I found. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Wolf

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

Only played on NFL practice squads. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. SportingFlyer talk 09:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to separate out all the noise in the search engines, but everything I find seems to either be passing mentions, fan blog entries, or "and finally" articles. Notability can be achieved through college play, but I can't determine that through my searches. If it were presented I'd reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Did you conduct a WP:BEFORE inquiry to determine whether there is coverage that might pass WP:GNG? If you did so and found no significant coverage, I'd be inclined to vote "delete" but want to make sure that has been done. Cbl62 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I always run a before search when nominating. My search brought up all the usual - the ESPN biography, the NFL biography, stats sites, transactional blurbs, so I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Since he won't get an appearance until at least next August I think a deletion without prejudice is the best option here. SportingFlyer talk 18:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds that he does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON and per absence of significant coverage cited in article and searches by SportingFlyer and PaulMcDonald which failed to turn up significant coverage of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. If significant coverage turns up, I'm open to reconsidering. Cbl62 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not reading up on all the requirements for an NFL player page. I moved the page to User:Capromeryx/EthanWolf, in case I want to keep working on it. I'll try to be more well-versed on Wikipedia's policies before I try making another page. Capromeryx (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Capromeryx! Feel free to reach out to any experienced editor and they'll be happy to help in whatever way they can! Bkissin (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. Obviously if something changes next season this can easily be restored and expanded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Lots of players never make it from the practice squad to the regular season roster. If he does, then this article can be put into mainspace.Sandals1 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable on the ground of WP:NGRIDIRON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:04, 11 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 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Bits

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable and impossible to source self-published fan site. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have a professional and qualified staff so it is not a fan site Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 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) 08:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so after a more in-depth look at their site and elsewhere, it does not appear to (clearly) be a fan site. Their about page has a list of news sources that have talked of them. Some links would have been nice. In any case, after a standard BEFORE check plus a source by source sweep of those mentioned here's the results: a couple of 2 line mentions, 1 interview and a bunch I couldn't find. From what I can find, there just isn't sufficient material to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Knights International Firefighters Motorcycle Club

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

Run-of-the-mill motorcycle club, organized and operated the same as other similar clubs, including numerous police and firefighter motorcycle cubs, that engages in standard activities like conventions, fundraising, etc. Not particularly large, or long-established. Has only been the subject of routine coverage like passing mention in news items about this club participating in social and public events, obituaries, or calendar listings of upcoming meetings. Fails WP:ORG, lacking sustained, in-depth coverage where the Red Knights International Firefighters Motorcycle Club is the primary subject. Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sangamo Therapeutics

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

Not much here, fails WP:GNG and the closely related WP:CORP. Edward Rebar is also listed for deletion; either article could conceivably be merged into the other if anything is to be kept. Uninvited Company 21:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything, and sources are skimpy.TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a publicly traded company with some significant outside coverage, so I think it needs to be kept but significantly improved. It could pass WP:CORP with some better citations. It does read too much like a PR piece. I vote keep, but needs major rework. Skirts89 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skirts89. It's a publicly traded company with coverage. PROMO can be dealt with outside of deletion. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usually, publicly traded companies are covered by analysts whose reports are considered independent and to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Finding those reports can be tricky, especially if they only exist behind a paywall of if you're a customer of the analyst firm. This report from Sinply Wall St and this from Motley Fool are two that in my opinion meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. Other reports exist also so I'm happy this is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, as WP:LISTED company and not being terribly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 9 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. Promotional with suspicion of undisclosed paid editing. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jankowski (author)

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

One of several articles submitted by a single new contributor that all appear to be biographies of individuals who are not notable. The many references in this article obscure the lack of any single claim of notability, and appear to lack independence. It does not appear to me that there would be anything left if we clean up the article. Uninvited Company 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2012 Adweek piece, the 2012 Yahoo! Finance piece and 2006 Billboard piece would appear sufficient to meet WP:GNG, leaving alone the other citations given. Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But ~~the 2012 Adweek piece is a single paragraph promoting an event;~~ the 2012 Yahoo piece is a press release; the 2006 Billboard Memphis-based Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. has named Paul Jankowski as its first-ever chief marketing office, is real, but it's just a routine hiring announcement in an industry magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Adweek piece is not a single paragraph: only a single paragraph is available for free online without subscribing to Adweek. A lot of journalism is based on press releases: Yahoo! used their editorial control to decide to run with the piece, so this is an WP:RS piece. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Yahoo running a press release doesn't automagically make it NOT a press release. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket ban on Wikipedia against RS pieces that began with press releases. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 Yahoo piece [46] is datelined: (Nashville, (Marketwire -08/14/12). Note that according to Wikipedia: "Marketwire "is a press release distribution service." This is a press release written In Nashville by Jankowski or his firm in and distributed by Marketwire. Not a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a marketing guru fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

respond. The 2012 Ad Week piece [47] is, as Bondegezou says, more than paragraph. The rest is paywalled. I am still not seeing sufficient WP:SIGCOV here to keep. Plus article is utter WP:PROMO. Also note that page is an orphan, sole link is disambig from page about a professor with the same name, and that before this AfD the page got a negligible number of views [[48]]. On Twitter this "brand strategist" has ~600 followers. These are not metrics we use, but they sure don't indicate that he's a very big deal in the world. I searched for him in WSJ, and found only a review of a book by the notable historian with this name, so I added the review to the professor's page. Then I searched NYTimes.com and found several articles about the historian, and one about a Polish diplomat. A Proquest news archive search turned up multiple articles about the historian, some about the diplomat, and an avalanche of articles in the Chicago papers about a school superintendent with this name. Plus an article in The Commercial Appeal (major regional newspaper in Memphis) in which our boy is interviewed because he was " Elvis Presley Enterprises chief marketing officer." Only an abstract shows on Proquest. Perhaps this is a brand promoter with regional notability? Dunno, but I'm not seeing it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC

Thank you for a thorough examination, but I didn't find it persuasive of your position. AfD is, of course, not clean up. Being an orphan or failing PROMO are reasons for clean up, not deletion, unless you are suggesting that the article is so flawed that we are in TNT territory? Number of Twitter followers is irrelevant. You appear to have found an additional article in support of GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per E.M. Gregory. Standard entrepreneurial vanity bio. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia advice these days is to avoid calling something a vanity article: see WP:VANITY. I had a look at the edit history of the person who created this article. Best I can tell, the person who created this article is not Paul Jankowski and is not a WP:SPA. However, there are only a few edits and they don't fit any simple pattern, so it is possible that they were operating with a WP:COI. They do not appear to be active at present and haven't participated in this debate. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check This page was created by an editor who had a brief career during which he created 4 articles, three of which have been deleted [49]. the 4 articles were of similar length when created (~8,000 words,) each was deleted as PROMO, and all were about individuals with careers in marketing/product promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 11 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 Deleted: repeatedly created, WP:SALTed, more information at *Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KPL98. – Athaenara ✉ 15:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC) (*Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cbrtutor) – Athaenara ✉ 01:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilynn Erika Hughes

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

There are no reliable sources in the article, and, given the nature of the article, I doubt these can exist. Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess now it might qualify for speedy deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 4 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) 17:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows

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

Two-day tour which seems to fail both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG N Ø 11:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC) And before someone else brings this up yes there are a few sources covering it [50][51][52] but none of it is in-detail coverage which could help expand this beyond a stub.--N Ø 11:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this article has been expanded a bit since this nom was started and I'd say its slightly bigger than a stub now. Still not a notable tour in my opinion and all the information that is currently in the article could easily be condensed into a paragraph on This Is What the Truth Feels Like. This "tour" is just a set of two shows that are being labelled as such for the sake of having an article. Wikipedia's very own article on concert tours gives the definition as "a series of concerts by an artist or group of artists in different cities, countries or locations", this "tour" consists of two shows at the same venue on a one day gap. I'm also not seeing any indication that Stefani or any primary source promoted this as a "concert tour". Update: It has also come to my attention that this show has almost the same set list as this. It could actually be merged there too.--N Ø 10:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that is a really a good rationale for deletion though. If a set of performances receive enough third-party coverage from reliable sources, then they should be deemed notable enough for an article. Even a single performance can have an article if there is enough coverage (just see The Beatles' rooftop concert as an example of this). Your disagreement over the definition of what constitutes a "concert" is not a valid argument for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not a concert tour and is only covered by a few sources then these performances would fit in a small section on the album article. In fact is there any primary source that actually referred to this as "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows"? The argument about the Beatles concert is WP:Otherstuffexists, I'm sure you know that so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. And even if we were to consider that comparison, these two Stefani shows are nowhere as much covered as the other concert you mentioned.--N Ø 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are understanding my point. It was not a direct comparison by any means, rather I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I do not believe your argument on what can be considered a "concert tour" is a strong case for deletion. It is a completely fair point to question whether or not the recent expansion fulfills notability requirements, but I wanted to use the comparison to represent how the other argument used for deletion was not good. Either way, I'm going to stop participating in this discussion as I am clearly not adding anything. I do not mean to sound rude, but I just wanted to comment on the whole "concert" definition thing that was recently brought up in this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan – LiveNation refers to "Irvine Meadows Final Shows" while the official press release poster uses "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" as the concerts' title. Classifying this article as just "slightly bigger than a stub" is undermining the situation. I'm having a very hard time agreeing with your idea of condensing this into a single paragraph on TIWTTFL when your very own MTrain Tour contains even less text than this article and recently achieved GA status. Carbrera (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know why we need to keep going back and forth. Notability is about coverage, not about text size. MTrain Tour is ten times more covered by sources based off of Trainor's vocal cord hemorrhage alone, but that's again an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway. (I'm trying to assume good faith here even though your argument is highly flawed, and you're doing it so I would back off). I'm not withdrawing this no matter how many paragraphs you add to the article if I don't agree there's enough coverage in the first place. You're demonstrating a lacking knowledge of core Wiki policies such as Otherstuffexists, I have no idea why you're bringing up the Trainor tour, which at the very least was an actual tour. This Gwen "tour" wasn't even being promoted on her official website five days before it happened. [53]--N Ø 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan – In advance, I'm stating that this is the last time I'm replying on here. You've made it very clear that regardless of what occurs to the article, you are against its existence, despite a decently written and lengthy article and several highly reputable sources. I only replied to your last comment as you seemed to hint at that there wasn't a single source that mentioned the name of these two shows. I provided you with a source in hopes that you would stop suggesting that I contributed to an article based off of non-existent concert series. I am very well aware of WP:OSE; I was not at all comparing this article to the MTrain tour article, I was just surprised that you referred to this one as "slightly bigger than a stub" when the Trainor article contained even less text but somehow had more sources used (ten more sources, not ten times more). I'm not here to argue, I'm not even offended that this was nominated for AfD, but I am offended that you are seemingly insinuating that I just took two promotional shows from Gwen's touring history, slapped a name on them, and called it a Wikipedia article. That is not what happened so stop implying that this isn't a tour. Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You’re taking it way too personally. For context, I also supported deleting the article about a recent Ariana Grande “tour” of a similar length. (Which had even more coverage than this one btw.) [54]. Besides, this back and forth argument is accomplishing nothing so it’s probably better that we both back off and wait for more people to weigh in. I request not to be tagged here again, or have any more responses directly under this comment. Hope that will be respected. Please add new comments under the relisting notice and refraining from clouding up the nom.—N Ø 12:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "a few" is a bit of an understatement. A large amount of sources discuss the article beyond what you mentioned. This is what I discovered from a simple Google search:

Not to mention that both dates of the concert were sold out and the concert series itself marked a significant end to a historic structure's existence, I cannot wrap my head around why this article should be deleted. Carbrera (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 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, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And I cannot wrap my head around why anyone would think that this is worth an article: a lot of local passing mentions/listings/press releases, supporting a single paragraph of prose that's press-release-style quote about the closing of the arena. --Calton | Talk 06:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carbrera's sources above as they point to some degree of notability, particularly the amount of reviews. Aoba47 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shows get reviews: that's routine coverage, like reports on ball games, and counts little towards notability. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A review does count toward notability as it shows that an event received coverage from a notable source. Aoba47 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calton and Aoba47 – just a head's up that the article has been decently expanded. Carbrera (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now it's TWO paragraphs of trivia. Vote stands. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can be more summed up as 'a local well-known artist closed a local concert venue' (with said artist hardly in their prime), and a venue not well-known outside the OC. At best, this is a paragraph at the end of the IMA article; as it is, it's definite Stefani-cruft with an overspam of ROUTINE articles (most from the same writer) with the artist's standard concert playlist, and no definite news value outside the OC (to me, it would be only notable if there was a No Doubt reunion during the show). At Budokan this ain't, and the IMA looks like every other amphitheater constructed in the 80s, so there's no historical value to it. Nate • (chatter) 12:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Despite the gallant effort to proffer sources, sources there came none in adequate support of independent notability. The best one can hope for is a merge onto the article about the artist. And there's a strong aroma of promotion all around, which really doesn't help. -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Wilfrid Stanyforth

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

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing. The article has no claim of significance and could be speedied, however, I am listing here due to the previous AfD. Uninvited Company 21:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be some information not included in this article, which may impact on an assessment of whether the subject is notable. He was a Lieutenant-Colonel (an equivalent rank to commander, but commander is not used in the British army). He was made Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB), which is equivalent to CBE, OBE, DSO, etc in the order of precedence. He was also Deputy Lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and was awarded the Territorial Decoration. All of this information is in his obituary in The Times and other papers. On their own, none of these would give presumed notability, but together perhaps they do indicate that he was considered notable. I don't know why all this isn't included in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But flesh out the article using the above mentioned information.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of what RebeccaGreen lists satisfies WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Some insufficiently notable accomplishments do not achieve notability by sheer volume. I could possibly be persuaded to change my mind if the Times obituary could be presented. I can't find it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While he doesn't quite meet the requirements for WP:SOLDIER 5, he did come close, having commanded a unit one level below during World War One (Yorkshire Hussars was a Regiment). Combined with the other aspects of minor notability, I believe that combined he meets the standard. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he had the CB (and he definitely did) he is most definitely notable under WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always considered the CBE and higher to qualify under that criterion and the CB is considerably higher than the CBE (and the OBE and DSO). An obituary in The Times is also generally held to qualify an individual for inclusion. And he does have one; it's on p.14, 30 Jan 1939. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 4 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFL President's Cup

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

There's no indication that the cup is notable. Sources largely are not independent, not reliable, or don't cover the competition in any detail; most are WP:ROUTINE game reports. Multiple sources don't even confirm the specific statements they're cited for. Major parts of the prose don't come with any sources whatsoever, indicating original research, the removal of which would amount to practically blanking the page. Huon (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced article detailing multiple competitions featuring in an overall festival of rugby league.Fleets (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fleets, how is this well-sourced? Please point out a single reliable third-party source that covers the competition in some detail (ie is not just a game report) and backs up the content in the article that it's cited for. Huon (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 references and four external links. I'm not saying that the individual teams are inherently notable, but you will struggle to get the Telegraph to put on a match report for England Students v Lionesses. It is a history of an amateur set of competitions, with sources that are appropriate to that. No-one is saying this is the FA Cup, but it is appropriately sourced for what it is.Fleets (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you haven't actually checked the sources. Having many footnotes and external links doesn't make something well-sourced. For example, references #6 and #9 are the same, and the source confirms neither of the two statements it's cited for. That's not the only problem by far. Huon (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 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 05:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced with a number of independent sources, including an independent weekly sports newspaper with a significant circulation - Rugby League & League Express - and its associated website. Additional sources from the newspaper will be provided shortly. Regional publications are also now cited.

The article has now had edits from a number of highly regarded Wikipedia editors, their adoption of which demonstrates the value of the article.

This competition is far more notable and better sourced than other sports' competitions that have extensive wikipedia coverage. Examples available on request. Feederdave (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I advise to check what the sources actually say. The page now cites the BBC, for example, but the BBC article doesn't mention this competition. Huon (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct the BBC article references the move to Manchester for the England Women's squad. But not every citation needs to reference the competiton, in this example its adding credance to narrative of the evolution of the women's pathway. Feederdave (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, sources need to reference the subject of the article. See WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. Huon (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its illustrating a different factual point. Not every source on wikipedia has the article title in it. Your earlier comment about sections of prose not being referenced conflicts your point now; this prose is now properly referenced but now you don't accept it?

As stated previously, there are thousands of less notable sports competitions with little to no independent sources of information on wiki. This competition IS notable on account of its status as being for national representative teams and the fact that is is referenced in multiple national and regional titles and web sources run by government departments (ministry of defence). Feederdave (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other sports competitions, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And regarding the referecing of the content, what's written about the RFL President's Cup still isn't well-sourced. Example: "The women's competition was discontinued following the RFL revamping the international player pathway process and introducing a National Performance Programme with a focus on talent identification, player skill development, physical competences and the creation of a performance coaching environment^[1] in advance of the RFL opening a National Rugby League Centre in Manchester^[2] which will provide facilities for the England Women's team to train at." Neither of the sources mentions the President's Cup (or Association's Cup); thus they cannot say anything about the discontinuation of the women's competition. The remainder of that sample might be better-referenced but is off-topic. Huon (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hodgson, Phil (2017-02-22). "RFL confirms upgraded Performance Pathways". Total Rugby League. Retrieved 2019-01-04.
^ "Etihad Campus: RFL to relocate with creation of new National Rugby League Centre". BBC Sport. 2018-03-05. Retrieved 2019-01-04.

But the rest you have no issue with? Feederdave (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with pretty much the entire page. In case it's kept (which it should not be, IMO), I'll do some cleanup, ie removal of unsourced, unreliably-sourced and off-topic content. Nothing much will remain, as I said in the nominating statement above. Huon (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the sources you believe to be unreliable, so I can clarify for you? Feederdave (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of the current revision, sources 1, 2, 5, 6, and 13 are clearly not reliable third-party sources. Passing mentions include sources 3, 4, and 7. Entirely irrelevant are sources 8, 9, and 10. Sources 11 and 12 don't say what they are cited for. All others are WP:ROUTINE game reports that do not discuss the Cup itself.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:12, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Crowe (singer)

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

non notable - request for info has been up over a year Smerus (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see sources from around the world - [55][56][57] (quoting from [58]). His performances have been reviewed by New York Times - [59][60] and Washington Post [61][62] among others, also [63][64][65][66]. Should pass WP:GNG, and as one of world's few male sopranos, perhaps WP:MUSICBIO #7. Hzh (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per previously users sources - the lack of included sources doesn't change the fact that the subject is notable. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO, as per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 11 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) 12:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmented distribution attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary reliable sources coverage. It was kept at AfD 8 years ago in hoping sources would come, they did not. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be something made up in the conference presentation linked to in the article ("An attempt to define the Fragmented Distribution Attack"), and on which the article is entirely based, but which has since failed to gain traction and therefore fails WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 21:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just found Intrusion detection system evasion techniques#Fragmentation and small packets which could be a suitable redirect target.Pontificalibus 09:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, ergo no article. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, possible redirect mentioned by Pontificalibus would seem okay too.--Staberinde (talk) 16:57, 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 keep. Procedurally closing this as keep this per Bearcat. There's indication it may be an inherently notable topic, but no one has contested the deplorable condition, so no trout given. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Prince Edward Island

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

AfD is not clean-up, but it is unclear how this article can be saved other than by being entirely re-written. It provides no real overview of anything and just cherry-picks topics and bands to write about. It's written informally like an essay or zine piece. I may get trouted for this, but I can't figure how else to fix this article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, unreferenced for 14 years. See also Music of Nova Scotia etc. I'd be in favour of redirecting the worst of these province articles to Music of Canada until such time as someone feels willing to write something using some sources.--Pontificalibus 20:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some changes to the article and added a few sources. There is plenty online material to be added, anyone interested might make further improvements to the article/topic. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clearly a notable topic; if it needs to be rewritten from scratch then fill yer boots. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep pending a discussion about whether the entire "Music of [Canadian province or territory]" thing should be reconsidered. Every other province or territory in Canada already has its own "Music of" page, and most of them aren't any better than this in either their sourcing or their substance — but there's no valid reason to delete only PEI's while leaving the other 12 untouched. If they were all batched together I'd probably support deletion, because every last one of them is either poorly written, poorly referenced or both, but I ain't down with picking on PEI alone. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bearcat, no prejudice against speedy renomination of all of them en bloc. In fact, I'd probably support such a proposal. SITH (talk) 10:21, 4 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 Groklaw#Additional projects. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grokline

AfDs for this article:

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

Article created to support a non-notable, short lived free software project. damiens.rf 10:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. (I created the page in 2004, fwiw). --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or failing that, Merge and redirect to Groklaw). The article was not created to support a free software project; it was created to document it in an encyclopaedic manner. The fact that the software package no longer exists does not detract from its original notability.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Groklaw#Additional_projects - refs provided are non-independent, and a search turned up no independent, significant WP:RS coverage. Related project appears notable, so redirect there is reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Џ 04:03, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Realize your potential

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

Appears to be non-notable. Google search reveals no coverage. Open library source doesn't support the six translations. This is my first AfD nom in years so someone please check my work. valereee (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that this book meets any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. Google Scholar says it's been cited 12 times, Worldcat shows it in 13 libraries, I don't find any reviews etc in JSTOR or EBSCO Academic search, nor in newspapers ... I have not searched the Russian title, but I note that there is no link to an article in Russian Wikipedia. The Worldcat link in the references (why is it in Vietnamese???) is to the author's profile on Worldcat, not this book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 19:39, 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. I think this is a reasonable keep given the strength of sources demonstrated, the clear recent consensus, and the questionable status of the AfD given that the only non-Keep participation is made by a Sock (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Group

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

Only negative sources.... There is nothing like independent sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY for Dragon Group. When it comes to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the page fails WP:CORP. It looks too promotional in tone and style as well. The page should be deleted under the section WP:G11 and WP:A7. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The nominator (a darned sockpuppet) spins a convoluted yarn. To unravel it, Dragon Sweater and Spinning Limited (DSSL) trades on the Dhaka and Chittagong Stock Exchanges,[67][68] where it attracts regular attention by the national financial press,[69] so there's a credible indication of importance, and WP:A7 doesn't apply.

"Only negative sources" is neither a reason for deletion nor an accurate description of the cited sources. Negative sources do exist, such as those that covered the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) fining the company for violating several laws,[70] the BSEC calling executives to testify about violations of securities rules,[71], and the BSEC restricting trading in the stock for several weeks.[72] If the article is "too promotional in tone and style", that should be fixed by trimming, rewriting, and knitting the cited sources together with negative ones such as these, not by deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Textiles is the most significant industry in Bangladesh in terms of export and GDP. It would not be a stretch to assume a major textile group in Bangladesh could be notable. The sources provided by Worldbruce support that notion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in The Financial Express (Bangladesh) [73][74][75][76] and New Age (Bangladesh) [77][78][79][80][81][82] Џ 03:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG on the strength of the sources linked here and in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LogicBuy

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

No significant coverage. Press releases are used in the article and I could only find routine trivial coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only brief mentions for marketing and sponsorship purposes, other than a single news item about it being acquired in 2011. —Madrenergic^talk 07:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references nowhere near suitable - only a small amount of Sig Cov, which is all press stuff, the rest are barely mentions. WP:NWEB and presumably WP:NCORP not satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 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) 11:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Radcliffe (film producer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Previously soft deleted and was re-created. Uninvited Company 20:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted. There are several pages worse than that that are online. There's not much information about Mark Radcliffe, except what already are on the page. It should be maintained. Greenfantasticbeast 16:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albeit procedural. I was the one who nominated it for speedy this time 'round. I have no thoughts on notability; my only point is that it appears to have been recreated a.) without any discussion, and b.) without any substantial change to what it was before. I have no problem with its being kept if those two concerns are dealt with. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ritchie333: Is this basically the same version you soft-deleted the first time this was at AfD? Would you have deleted it again if it had been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4? If you would've, then I cannot see any way of keeping this because despite the WP:OSE type of !vote for keeping this given above. You would think WP:NEXIST would work for somebody credited as producing a number of major films, right? However, I haven't really been able to find anything myself. Maybe redirecting to one of the film articles would be an acceptable alternative to deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete. Does a producer fall under WP:FILMMAKER? If so, he qualifies for his work on numerous big films, but I tend to think not. As for GNG, Greenfantasticbeast has inadvertently torpedoed Radcliffe: "There's not much information about Mark Radcliffe, except what already are [sic] on the page." Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1492 Pictures. Producers and executive producers, unlike directors, generally don't receive much coverage, even when they have worked on major films, and this appears to be the case here. I could find several mentions of him producing, or co-producing films, but nothing significant. The most substantial is this from Variety about the production company he formed with Chris Columbus, and a redirect there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding the WP:ATD Michig proposed good enough here. In that targeted article, Mark Radcliffe is only mentioned by name (founded by). While a valid suggestion, I don't think there is enough there to justify keeping the page history of this article as is. Since there is nothing meaningful to merge somewhere possibly, and nothing else beyond that, it is not what readers would want to look for if they want information about Mark himself. Now regarding the article: Mark fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG by a solid margin, passing mention in a book, bio site and a press release. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in detail, there are no awards he won that would save this from deletion. Nothing much to find outside of it except passing mentions like the Variety thing mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:10, 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. The deletion rationale was not rebutted. While the discussion was lightly attended in spite of two relists, I do see a rough consensus since the issues were thoroughly discussed. I am willing to restore this article to draft status upon request, or anyone may ask at [WP:REFUND]]. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, Librarian

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

Others have tagged this with CSD and PROD, the first declined and the second contested, so I'm bringing this up at AfD to get a more clear consensus. To me the subject does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. Two independent sources are given in the article. The Linux.org article only name-checks the service. The Scientist article seems better, and perhaps even qualifies as significant coverage in a reliable independent publication. I'm unsure of that one, but taking it at face value, I am having a hard time finding another source to satisfy "multiple". As it doesn't seem to satisfy our notability guidelines, I think it should be deleted. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a problem in the lack of independent sources. This is a description of a piece of software, not an opinion or claim. Users should test the software and decide if it is appropriate for their needs. The topic of this article is an outline of the main features of I, Librarian, focusing on where it differs from other reference managers, what it is doing better and what worse. The aim is to help the potential users make an informed decision on whether trying this software is a worthy investment of their time.

It is a general problem in software that reviews cannot be trusted. Access to the source code is some sort of assurance. It is helpful if there is a large community of users to monitor, document and explain the source code to new users but this is not always possible. I, Librarian is an open source software, so experienced users at least can evaluate any statements in the article themselves.

There are many other reference managers, like JabRef, Zotero, KBibTeX and Pybliographer without many external independent references. None of these pages satisfies the criterion of independent sources, but if they were deleted then only a few popular and proprietary managers will be left in wikipedia, like Mendeley. I don't think this would be appropriate. Many of the open source managers are better for some tasks than proprietary ones, and wikipedia is one of the few places were comprehensive reviews and comparisons of this software can be found. In my opinion practical information like this is important for an encyclopedia. Is there any way to classify this article as useful practical information?

Gkaf (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gkaf: The problem about the lack of independent sources is that it causes the subject to fail WP:N; also, see "other stuff exists". Delete per Wugapodes unless more coverage is identified. Catrìona (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: The insistence on independent sources makes this AfD request fail WP:5P5 and guideline Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

The article has a well defined purpose that fits in a wider context. There is the Comparison of reference management software article that lists the main features of each reference manager. The user needs some more information before installing a reference manager, so each reference manager has a short wikipedia entry.

I would prefer a functional reason for deleting the I, Librarian page. Rules are arbitrary when they don't take into account the context and the function of the article.

@Wugapodes: The WP:NCORP policy mentioned in the AfD request does not seem appropriate for this article. The policy WP:DIRECTORY would be more appropriate, but the whole section on reference managers is organized in a directory like manner. Is there a reason to change this approach? Gkaf (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gkaf: Your time would be better spent finding independent, reliable sources that show notability than it is arguing technicalities (see WP:HELPAFD). We have no firm rules, but we do have rules; you need good reasons to convince others to ignore or change them. IAR is not a carte blanche; it means you can be bold, not that other people have to accept your boldness. IAR is at its weakest when the justification violates what wikipedia is not, and trying to justify an exception from notability guidelines on IAR grounds is difficult because they exist to make sure that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information based on the first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. My functional argument is that this article does not meet our inclusion criteria, and yours is that you don't want to follow those criteria.

The page Comparison of reference management software does not list any reference management software that WP:EXISTS. It lists only blue links, articles that already exist. It is a summary of the articles we have on software that are notable enough to have already been included in the encyclopedia. It is not a directory of reference management software, but a directory of the encyclopedia. If something is not fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, is not fit for inclusion there. Your justification gets the situation backwards; that article does not justify the creation of articles on any existing bibliography manager. If something is not fit for inclusion as a separate article, it doesn't matter what list it could be included in: it is not fit for inclusion and so should be deleted. The article I, Librarian, from my and Catrìona's perspective, does not pass the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia and so should neither have an article nor be included in Comparison of reference management software. Your justification relies upon readers using Wikipedia as akin to a buyer's guide, not an encyclopedia.

Finally, NCORP does and clearly applies here, as even though it is a FOSS project, it still falls under the scope of that guideline based on the first two sentences: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If you still believe those sentences do not describe this product and the people who produce it, Catrìona also pointed out that it fails the basic WP:GNG, which I also agree with. Both NCORP and the GNG require independent reliable sources which we cannot find and do not believe to exist. To convince us otherwise, the best way to do so is to find them and show them to us, not argue about rules. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide an opportunity for expansion and addition of encyclopedic sources if these can be found. bd2412 T 03:40, 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 speedy merge/redirect per consensus and WP:ATD-R -- The Anome (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent breathing

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

This stub article purports that a breathing technique can produce medical benefits. Sources appear to be little more than advertorials for a book, which is the sole source of reference for this topic. None of the sources appear to comply with WP:MEDRS. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep unfortunatly this psuedoscientific dribble has been covered by RS; huffington post, Independent, NY Times, and Forbes. While none of these sources are realiable for medical claims they do make it notable enough to have an article. The article does need some push back on the junk science, but much of that has been removed. --VViking_TalkEdits 21:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes contributors is not WP:RS in general, and for medical topics we'd need WP:MEDRS compliant sources to write a proper article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No MEDRS quality sources, cannot write a NPOV article. I note that the HuffPost and NYT articles just uncritically quote a book published by the rather dubious, non-MEDRS compliant publisher Shambhala Publications, which specializes in "Buddhism, yoga, psychology, philosophy, Eastern studies, self-help". The Independent article appears to be based on a similar book. For now, Redirect to Conscious breathing. I have no opinion on whether the latter article has enough MEDRS sources to be kept. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the more general article about Conscious breathing, of which it is clearly a instance. Any pseudoscience should be removed. -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I've already replaced the unsourced nonsense at Conscious breathing with the content in here, so merger is basically done. Redirection is valid per WP:ATD-R but per Buidhe, Conscious breathing also needs a look at per MEDRS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Siuda

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

This article fails to establish the notability of it's subject, as almost all of the sources are primary ones. Furthermore, the article has had this problem, among others, since 2012. Anything useful here could be moved to the article on Kemetic Orthodoxy. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Tamsier (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and no indication of being notable as an author, scholar, or religious leader. Sandals1 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above no independent coverage to meet WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 11:39, 9 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) 09:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pelosi

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

Kind of beyond me how this guy has a standalone article when all of his notability is from Speaker Pelosi. Every article. It doesn’t take much research to surmise that his page should be deleted or redirected to hers. Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not inherited. The difficulty here is she is more notable than he is and eclipses him. He's also fairly private. Still, the SF Gate article counts, and Mr. Pelosi's minor league football ownership attracted some attention as well, such as but not including to here [83]. It's enough to get him over the WP:GNG line, and most importantly I think he'd be similarly borderline notable if he were married to someone else. SportingFlyer talk 03:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long comment short, SFG still manages to make those about his wife even from the first sentences. Especially the one cited in the page which could be summed up by this sentence: "I've made a conscious effort to not be involved or give the appearance of being involved in her political career.” I really don’t see much out there about his business career especially that doesn’t drag her name into it for no reason other than to drag her name into it. I disagree about the borderline notability if he was married to someone else because she isn’t just any politician, she’s the most powerful woman in America (media jargon, not my opinion). “Husband of” isn’t notability, the caption under that photo of her (not him) in the WaPo article perfectly illustrates that.Trillfendi (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but having a substantial stake in the California real estate industry and tilting at minor league football ownership windmills is an indicator of notability. We'll agree to disagree here, then. SportingFlyer talk 04:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to pass WP:GNG to me, and doesn't seem to violate any policy that I can detect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming to pass is what got Isha Ambani’s article deleted. We gotta dig deeper, folks.Trillfendi (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Passes WP:GNG. And Isha Ambani is a redirect, I can find no AFD... Great big "Huh???"--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Ambani. But I'm still confused how an AFD on an article about a female businesswoman from India has any bearing on this AFD. Is this a case of WP:SOURGRAPES??--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a pass of WP:GNG. It's impossible to talk about him without mentioning his spouse, for obvious reasons, and of course articles that only mention him in passing as a spouse should not count toward notability. But among other things he's actually notorious for losing millions in American football leagues that aren't named "NFL". I just added the Washington Post profile [84] on the occasion of his first investment in the UFL. He passes WP:GNG on his own, and there's plenty of material on him to expand the article, should someone wish to build up rather than tear down. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer's arguments. The articles about his investments in minor league American football teams is totally separate from his wife's political activities, and is likely enough for him to pass WP:GNG on his own. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete I don't know if minor-league sports ownership is enough to prove notability for me personally, and as others mentioned notability is not inherited. Bkissin (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actual wording of WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Plus, we have scads of articles on political spouses: Todd Palin, Michael Haley, Jeanette Rubio, Columba Bush a few of the many we keep because they get press despite the fact that there is no notable accomplishment beyond the marriage. Paul Pelosi, by contrast, is a highly accomplished if extremely private man.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Palin, Michael Haley, Jeanette Rubio, and Columba Bush have held offices as First Spouses of their respective states because of their marriages. That’s notable.Trillfendi (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First spouses of Governors of American states are not automatically notable (spouses of U.S. Presidents are). We keep politicla spouses when, as with Pelosi and as with numerous spouses of Senators and Congressmen, the spouse attracts sufficient press attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the role of his wealth in funding her career, and the press coverage of the fact that he doesn't want to be covered in the press are more than sufficient to make him notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) He says "I've made a conscious effort to not be involved or give the appearance of being involved in her political career," so where is the verifiability that he funds her career rather than donors and 2) That’s a contradiction. 3) Not wanting to be a public figure isn’t notability. And 4) Y’all keep bringing up his business career yet none of you want to provide sources for it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Trillfendi question "so where is the verifiability that he funds her career rather than donors"? On the page. Source 5. San Francisco Chronicle detail the fact that Paul Pelosi's wealth funded Congresswoman Pelosi's career. It's WP:SIGCOV of a pretty significant fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I perceived that as they’re rich enough that she doesn’t have the need to do political fundraisers if she doesn’t want to, not that he was actually writing checks to her campaign, therefore funding it. Based on FEC records, he hasn’t donated a dime. Trillfendi (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. His wealth and their marriage has funded her career that's not the same thing as giving campaign donations. She was able to dedicate herself to public life BECAUSE he brought in the bucks. I know a cardiologist who funds the career of her husband, a theology professor at a minor seminary; a corporate lawyer who funds the career of her husband, a literary novelist (he gets great reviews, earns peanuts in royalties.) There is nothing unusual about the Pelosis' supportive marriage, except that it gets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still trying to figure out how, really, one regional article about their relationship correlates to sigcov for a whole article to stand on.Trillfendi (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Business career sources like [85] [86] [87]? Also can you please clarify your recent edit summary, "I can never just press publish changes without you MFs adding shit at the last second"? SportingFlyer talk 23:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was really just my mumbling that everytime I press publish changes, another person has gone back to make an addendum so because of edit conflict I have to do it over. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously or acknowledged.Trillfendi (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now with regard to these sources, heavy.com is not reliable, but the WaPo and Hill ones could go, I suppose. (I really still think based on its reporting that it should go in her personal life section). Trillfendi (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searched WSJ, here's a little of what's out there. More than enough to support notability:

Pelosi Investment Shows Unlikely Energy Alliance - [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121944622079465097}: "Aug 23, 2008 - The purchase is listed as stock held by the speaker's husband, successful financier and businessman Paul Pelosi. The investment rose at the ..."
Storied Investor's Football League Fumbles - WSJ [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324077704578358904110131698": Mar 28, 2013 - Paul Pelosi Associated Press. Mr. Hambrecht says he had wanted the UFL to launch with a broader group of investors, but the 2008 financial ...
Lawmakers Keep Earning Quick Profits on IPOs - WSJ [88] Jun 18, 1996 - "All seven were listed in the name of her husband, San Francisco businessman Paul Pelosi. The trades included some of last year's hottest IPOs ..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one turns a 404 page unavailable error, so I can’t really say anything about that, but I’m still trying to figure out the independent notability of a businessman who is referred to as “husband” in his own dealings. Trillfendi (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as showed by the sources listed in the comments above. --Enos733 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Danski14^(talk) 01:30, 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 keep. Consensus demonstrated that notability is established, with a general clear view that GRIDIRON also applies to CFL. Disputes on that issue should take place at the appropriate location. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denicos Allen

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

No evidence he ever played in an actual main season NFL game. Not enough sources to show notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm seeing lots of fan-type blog entries but nothing stands out as an independent third party reliable source. It's possible he could be notable from his college career, but I'm not finding any evidence of that. I admit there is a lot of "noise" in the search engines, so if good sources are presented I'd certainly consider them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failure of WP:BEFORE. WP:NGRIDIRON is not limited to the NFL, but also extends to the Canadian Football League (CFL). Allen played in the CFL during the 2015 season, appearing in three games, two as a starter, registering 17 tackles. See here, here and here. Article is in poor shape, but that's cause for improvement rather than deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Playing pro in the CFL meets notability requirements so I change to Keep. Thanks for the find!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, yes, but playing the Canadian Football League also fully passes WP:GRIDIRON. To be fair to the nominator, the article didn't really say anything about his CFL career at the time of nomination — it included CFL teams in the infobox, but didn't mention anything about them in the body text, so it would be entirely possible for an editor who didn't recognize the team names to miss the money shot. But the article has now been expanded, so his notability is now properly covered off. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allen passes WP:NGRIDIRON as a former player in the CFL. Total failure of WP:BEFORE by the nominator. Yet another bad sports-related AfD nomination by this particular user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it fooled me too! It may be worthwhile to beef up WP:BEFORE with suggested searches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Cbl62's research. I had looked in clfapedia.com and found his name but there was no indication he had played in a regular season game. FWIW, my research shows he also appeared in 4 pre-season games for Tampa Bay in 2014 (I know that it doesn't help his notability). He meets WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Given the evidence presented and unanimity of opinion to keep, would you consider withdrawing the nom so that this can be closed early? Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Iam not going to withdraw the nominsation. Just because the pro-football cabal wants to keep does not show this is a uniniomous view. Canadian football is not so big all players should have default notability and there is not enough coverage to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what is an "uniniomous view"? Did you mean "unanimous?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would avoid referring to editors who disagree with you based on Wikipedia's guidelines as a "cabal". Nonetheless, this is getting close to the point where an early snow keep could be appropriate, regardless of whether the nomination is withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GRIDIRON. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 9 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 David Sherman#Vietnam War. Whoever wants to merge to content is free to do so from the history of the page itself. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Night Fighter (novel series)

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. I have nominated the articles for the individual books as well, since they also seemed not to be notable. Perhaps a good solution could be keeping this page and incorporating the content (what little there is) from the individual book pages into this main article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've missed a few of David Sherman and Dan Cragg's novels -- were you intending to nominate all of them, or only the current list? "The Night Fighters" series was no big seller, but the Starfist series (a couple of which you've nominated as well) were rather more successful. You've not nominated all the Starfist novels -- was that an oversight? Perhaps putting an individual blurb about each book on the author's bio is the best course of action. I admit to being a fan of these authors and their books (even ran a fansite for them at (Starfist Headquarter), and created most of these articles, but I confess that they may very well be "non-notable". The Starfist series was allegedly being considered for a film, but this never bore fruit. A "teaser" trailer was even made! It's pretty cool: Starfist Teaser I'm not arguing for "notability" -- just wanted to mention it. Cyberherbalist (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to "bully" you for deleting all these articles you made, you've certainly worked hard on them and I commend you for that. However most of them seemed to lack significant coverage to make them notable (which is why we're here). Except for a few that did seem to be notable, I was on track to delete most of them. I may have missed some? Generally if a book has more than 2 "non-trivial" reviews from reliable sources they can be kept (If my reading of WP:BK is correct?). I support you putting a short blurb on the authors page, that'd be a good place to mention the trailer too! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book series, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War as option other than deletion. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Redirect? Which one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Zero sources, no reliable information, beyond the fact tah tthe book exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:22, 11 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 David Sherman#Vietnam War. Whoever wants to merge to content is free to do so from the history of the page itself. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Fire

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Reviews, sources not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War as option other than deletion. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Redirect? Which one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War as {{R from book}} and {{R to section}}, preserving the edit history in case someone wants to merge material later (which does not require AfD input). Bakazaka (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:10, 11 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) 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Beene

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

No evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. I checked online sources, Google books, and Lexus Nexus Academic for offline news sources and couldn't find reliable sources demonstrating Beene meets the notability criteria for inclusion. There has been no editing activity outside of gnoming and bots since the article was prodded and subsequently deprodded 12 years ago. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 01:43, 4 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 David Sherman#Vietnam War. Whoever wants to merge to content is free to do so from the history of the page itself. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Rock and a Hard Place

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Reviews, sources not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Can't find enough sources to establish sufficient notability. Capitals00 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Redirect? Which one? And better to pile up these discussions into one or two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:12, 11 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 David Sherman#Vietnam War. If a merge is also desired, the article's content remains accessible via its Revision history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Nghu Night Falls

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Reviews, sources not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War as option other than deletion. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Redirect? Which one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:42, 4 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) 12:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Clubs... In Your Face

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

After doing a before search, I found a lack of reliable, secondary sources, similar to the troubling ones already in the article. Being exclusive or rare does not make it notable, meeting NALBUM in some form or GNG does. I obviously would be receptive to a redirect as well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Surprisingly for such a huge band, this little EP seems to have gone unnoticed by the media, reflecting its origins as a quickie promo for fans in Japan. No need for a separate article. Since the tracks were later added as bonuses for Adrenalize the title could possibly be redirected there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since it was only a bonus disc for the Japanese Adrenalize, and was not officially sold on it's own, I see no reason for it to have its own page. I think that a redirect to the main Adrenalize page would suffice, especially since the amount of credible sources is little to none. ~AlesaRosePhotos (contribs) 03:17, 04 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 David Sherman#Vietnam War. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Don't Live Here Anymore

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that a whole series of books by David Sherman have given rise to short articles on his books. I suggest that these all get merged with the article on David Sherman. Vorbee (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Reviews, sources not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War as option other than deletion. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect? Which one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no sources found. None. Book already listed at David Sherman, although it is not clear that he passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replied with sources here. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not support a stand-alone page. *Merge to David Sherman#Vietnam WarE.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 11 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. Not much discussion unfortunately, but the argument for deletion seems thorough and has some endorsement. RL0919 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Burge

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

The article subject has not received the kind of in-depth coverage that would be necessary to demonstrate independent notability. Provided sources consist of a) one puff-piece "interview" (as in, not a single question asked), b) a number of incidental mentions in connection with a hunting ban proposal (two of which don't even mention his name) - this stuff merely shows that Countryside Alliance deserves an article, and it has one -, c) and two press releases. Further searching pulls up one more company press release, nothing more. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, available sources do not give any indication that the subject passes GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Burge owns a chateau in France.", don't we all? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 01:41, 4 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 David Sherman#The DemonTech Saga. Whoever wants to merge the content is free to do so from the page history. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Run

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#The DemonTech Saga in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Sherman#The DemonTech Saga CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:13, 11 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 David Sherman#Vietnam War. If anyone here wants to go and WP:BOLDly perform a merge they can take the initiative and do it. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Squad (novel)

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War in lieu of deletion. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the book, which is required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ . Reviews, sources not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War as option other than deletion. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to David Sherman#Vietnam War. Perhaps a page on the author, group of novels can be sources. a stand-alone page for this novel cannot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 11 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. Sadly, there was not much discussion here and it shows. FOARP had a WP:ATD argument well presented but it was not supported either by the nominator nor by anyone else. On the other side we have Cunard's listing of sources to prove it passes WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG, also not getting any support or rebutted by someone. Therefore, this is the way to go. If the nominator is not satisfied with the sources posted, feel free to renominate this in few weeks/months again. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firestorm (novel)

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to StarFist series - can't find any supporting references for this book in particular, but the Starfist series as a whole just about reaches WP:SIGCOV based on this review in Publisher's Weekly and this review in issue 332 of Starlog magazine (text only I'm afraid). FOARP (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Green, Roland (2007-05-01). "Firestorm". Booklist. 103 (17). ISSN 0006-7385.
  The review notes:
  
  Sherman, David and Cragg, Dan. Firestorm. June 2007. 320p. Del Rey, $21.95 (0345460561).
  On the planet Ravenite, Confederation Marines face rebels reminiscent of nineteenth-century Confederates and a commander who hates marines to the point of treason. Fortunately, an army general becomes an ally willing to defy their own hateful general. The marines have better training and intelligence than those of their opponents, and they will need it because the alien Skinks are going to be back in the next Starfist volume, in which series devotees can expect more, too, of Charlie Bass. More of the usual good stuff for military sf buffs from two master depicters of grunts at war, which Sherman and Cragg themselves once were.
2. "Starfist: Firestorm". Publisher's Weekly. 254 (18). 2007-04-30. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  
  Injecting freshness into a situation that was clichéd even in the days of Hugo Gernsback, they show how training and esprit de corps can overcome the most terrifying encounters. In contrast, the authors treat the stupidity of the book's comic-opera human antagonists with Swiftian invective. You don't have to be a military SF buff to appreciate this entertaining and instructive exercise.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Firestorm to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Booklist and Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:39, 4 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flashfire (novel)

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

Not notable per WP:BK. Is already mentioned on page of author, that seems sufficient enough mention. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 09:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to StarFist series - can't find any supporting references for this book in particular, but the Starfist series as a whole just about reaches WP:SIGCOV based on this review in Publisher's Weekly and this review in issue 332 of Starlog magazine (text only I'm afraid). FOARP (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Green, Roland (2005-12-15). "Flashfire". Booklist. 102 (8): 31. ISSN 0006-7385.
  The review notes:
  
  Sherman, David and Cragg, Dan. Flashfire. Jan. 2006. 336p. Del Rey, $19.95 (0-345-46054-5).
  Sherman and Cragg's justifiability popular Starfist series continues with a vivid depiction of ground combat worthy of ranking with Heinlein's classic Starship Troopers (1953). The planet Ravenette has seceded from the Confederation, and this threatens to reveal the secret of the alien Skins. The 34th FIST (Fleet Initial Strike Team), which already knows about the Skinks, gets the job of suppressing the rebels and find, somewhat to its dismay, that they are a well-armed and -trained infantry. Charlie Bass has his first experience of leading in combat as an officer, and the marines of the 34th face what can only be described as a slogging match. The development of respect beteween the opponents recalls the American Civil War, as does the development of disrespect on both sides for their governments. At this high level of accomplishment, Sherman and Cragg can keep the Starfirst series going as long as they can please with no fear of ever displeasing military-sf fans.
2. "Starfist: Flashfire". Publisher's Weekly. 252 (42). 2005-10-24. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  
  Fans of military SF who appreciate down-and-dirty ground action will enjoy Sherman and Cragg's hyperrealistic look at the infantry combat of the future. The marines of the 34th Marine Fleet Initial Strike Team (FIST) face a more conventional, and perhaps more deadly, opponent than they did in their last outing, A World of Hurt (2004). ... This book not only entertains but makes the reader reconsider the costs of government secrecy.
3. Russo, Tom (2006-02-24). "Starfist: Flashfire". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
  The review notes:
  
  The authors, former military men, convincingly relay troop maneuvering — to the point that it frequently smothers the action.
  This review provides less substantial coverage of the subject compared to the previous two reviews.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flashfire to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in Booklist and Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with the three above reviews (btw, the EW review although small is fine, reminds me of haiku, short but sweet. :)) (thankyou Cunard :)). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. I am surprised to see those many sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:07, 11 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 while the article could be significantly improved, that does not mean the subject isn't notable. RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Ben Ammar

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

Normally I find it annoying when IP users remove all the substance from an article for no reason without even attempting to contribute. But in this case, I just might have to agree with the notability tag. Ben Ammar is a too soon right now, both NMUSIC and NMODEL. The content that IP user removed had a promotional tone so they were right for that. Looking at her "career" she has really only done less than 10 jobs. Articles about her are typically teen gossip about her love life or inherited notability from her father. I know some of you may look at that Vogue thing about her graduating high school but let's look at the bigger picture. Trillfendi (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but there is notability here, even if only in the form of puff pieces. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NoCOBOL: How do “I not like it” when I’ve followed her long enough to know that the notability tag is accurate right now, so it’s not mutually exclusive. Since when do puff pieces create notability when that’s a neutrality issue? Like I said, an IP user removed EVERYTHING related to her career because there were no sources for it and upon further review I agreed. All they left was the fact that she’s a film producer’s daughter and that she’s going to college. When I put that latter source there years ago I assumed it would remain in the personal life section. So if you can find actual reliable sources about her music career, please be my guest, but from what I see nothing has charted yet.Trillfendi (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, but I also believe that despite it being vacuous pop culture it does hold sufficient notability to be included on this site. NoCOBOL (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neithe here nor there, the article is 2 sentences, one about parents and one about high school and college attendance. So frankly I’m puzzled where the notability is here since everything remotely related to career was removed by an IP as I originally explained, for not having verifiability; and if my agreement with that is perceived as IDontlikeit then there’s nothing I can do about that I suppose.Trillfendi (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per NoCOBOL. Comparing this nomination by Trillfendi to her AfD nominations for Kätlin Aas, Florence Faivre, and Mary Grace (AfDs for women are on my watchlist) I see a pattern of dismissing clear evidence of that the person meets WP:N, evidence which should have prevented the AfD in the first place. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: You do realize that me being a feminist means I treat women equally to men, not better or worse just because of our genitalia. And as a feminist, I am not adding sources titled “Brooklyn Beckham’s girlfriend.” So feel free to vote on Paul Pelosi and Tom MacDonald (rapper) too which I have currently proposed for deletion. When I propose deletion, I don’t think ONE source overrides the need of significant coverage, especially of an actual profile, or notability is not inherited. When I propose deletion it’s because there is a need to dig deeper into the sources. “Sonia Ben Ammar graduated high school and is going to college in the fall” is not notability in itself but it’s ironic because I was the one who added that source....Trillfendi (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Multiple in-depth articles in Vogue or other RS are evidence of notability--even when they discuss trivial matters like graduation or dating--WP:NNC. There are many people whose parents or boyfriends are much more famous than SBA's who don't get articles about them in Vogue. AfD is not cleanup, not a way to motivate others to "dig deeper into the sources." You need to use article templates rather than AfD for such situations. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix this article before PRODD and I certainly didn’t come here for cleanup. I already agreed with the notability template. When I say dig deeper I obviously mean extrapolation. From what I read in that Vogue, she’s a “new face” and in my view still a too soon. Not a career to make an article out of yet. In these articles usually a “so-and-so has done this, this and that” sentence in the lead, so without it mattering what the material, one could use it for another citation. In this one it’s Chanel and Miu Miu. But this is the career content that an IP user removed from the article:

“Since early childhood, Sonia studied dance, singing, piano and theater. She was only 8 years old when she voiced the role of Fairy in the movie Winx Club, and she never looked back. She continued her professional career by participating in several major television network “variety” shows. Sonia’s first live performance followed suit with an appearance in the opera Magdalena at the world renowned theatre de Chatelet (2010 ) in Paris, France. In 2013, she made her film debut playing Little Raphaëlle in the French Film, Jappeloup, which was a major box office success. Sonia successfully returned to the stage by landing the much sought after role of Charlotte, in the blockbuster French Musical, 1789: Les Amants de la Bastille, which went on to tour in some of the biggest arenas in France, Belgium and Switzerland from 2013 to 2014. A native English speaker, Sonia moved to Los Angeles in 2017 to study music at University of Southern California. She continued her musical career by performing at Coachella Music Festival with the famous French DJ Petit Biscuit and has embarked on her first solo album. Recently, she he has appeared in the music video of Calvin Harris and Sam Smith “Promises”. In 2016, Sonia signed with the prestigious IMG modeling agency and has starred in leading fashion campaigns and shows for Dolce & Gabbana, Miu Miu, Carolina Herrera, Top Shop, Nina Ricci and Chanel. She has also appeared in high profile magazines such as Vogue, Vanity Fair, Harper’s Bazar, Love, l’Officiel and Elle.”

Now take all the puffery, non-neutrality, and unencyclopedic writing from it, what’s in it is an unreleased album with no definite release date known and a modicum of modeling jobs with no citations for verification. So as this article stands in its current form, it’s a deletion. It’s only two sentences; one about who her parents are and the other about where she goes to college. And that’s just not notability.Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can make up separate conditions or additional rules, but under Wikipedia guidelines this subject has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. HouseOfChange is right about WP:NNC: Notability guidelines do not apply to the content within an article, so the fact that much of the likely article content is about street style or Coachella or boys should not affect whether an article is retained. Bakazaka (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Once more, the article is just an “early life” section of 2 sentences. And a ::table with an album which at this point in time, is literally just an abstract idea with no release date yet. So what is this article even supposed to be about without content? Trillfendi (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An expandable stub/start class article with available sources, on the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Bakazaka (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is evidently what had messed the article up and got it to this point in the first place.... Trillfendi (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find comfort in WP:IMPERFECT. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had that reckless person just left it the way it was before, the article would have had somewhere to go from there. Honestly, it would’ve been virtually almost unnoticeable that it wasn’t sourced. But here we are. What career can be found from a vacuum? Judging by the page’s history there weren’t reliable sources to begin with and no one’s tried to improve it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get this. There are four references which provide significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No matter what the state of the article, she certainly meets WP:GNG, and anybody could use those sources and add more information to the article, without even searching for more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 11 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.

[1] Cunard

[2] Hodgson, Phil (2017-02-22). "RFL confirms upgraded Performance Pathways". Total Rugby League. Retrieved 2019-01-04.

[3] "Etihad Campus: RFL to relocate with creation of new National Rugby League Centre". BBC Sport. 2018-03-05. Retrieved 2019-01-04.

[1]

[1]

[2]