Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Testspure (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 14 January 2019 (Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech News 2Night). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 13 January 15 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Tech News Today#History. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News 2Night

Tech News 2Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Canceled podcast of no importance or merit; not noteworthy. Testspure (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the WP:CHEAP essay does not "favor redirects over deletion (to quote: Creating redirects from existing articles can be valid alternatives to pursuing deletion discussions, saving discussion time where a redirect is a legitimate and likely outcome. Consensus should still be sought via discussion), nor does the WP:ATD policy (to quote WP:ATD-R: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required). Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Roberson

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've improved the article a bit and added more sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of singnificant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. The Tennessean and Nashville Post are OK with me, but I need maybe one more. I don't find SB Nation as a whole to be generally reliable. There's a lot of fan-type blogging there, but I make exceptions for some of their authors with substantial prior credentials. No indication that is worthy here. The CBS Sports coverage is fantasy sports related, and not that in-depth. He does not meet WP:NHOOPS either, but GNG does not require that.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Coverage is from two Nashville (which is where Vanderbilt is located) newspapers and consists of typical local sports coverage--something pretty much every Division I starter would receive. I don't believe that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:14, 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. Needs work but the consensus is to keep. Tone 20:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Newcomb

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

An unreferenced WP:BLP. Tagged for notability since 2010. A possible advert for his books. The books themselves are fairly niche but well received on Amazon. WP:Before isn't returning anything, this may be because the name is quite common. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not promotional (not nearly polished enough) - probably just an author stub to begin with (and it is that now). I do suspect he passes WP:NAUTHOR - e.g. see recent coverage on his 1958 "Abandon Ship!" book - [1][2] referring to it as a classic. We use his 1961 book as a reference on Battle of Savo Island (a FA). His name does make BEFOREing a tad more difficult. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep . Passes NAUTHOR. Bokks are well known historical refs.- Altenmann >talk 07:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR in aggregate, though it doesn't look like there's a lot of RS biographical info out there (a limited amount of primary information may need to be used). Iwo Jima appears to have been reviewed in both Washington Post (flap quote) and New York Times Review of Books[3] as well as Flying Magazine[4], cited by 19 works including Flags of Our Fathers, and recommended for further reading by the writer of the Marine Corps's 50th Anniversary history of Iwo Jima.[5] Also namechecked in a Kirkus review for another book[6]. Abandon Ship was reviewed in at least NYTRB and Times Literary Supplement[7], further covered here[8], and its rerelease was on the NYT Bestseller list for a number of weeks[9][10]. Boston Uni holds his collection[11]. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hydronium Hydroxide has already given some sources for reviews such as New York Times [12], I can also see many in addition for just his book on Iwo Jima, e.g. [13][14][15], therefore should qualify per WP:AUTHOR #3. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I will attempt to summarize the two opposing arguments, neither of which have consensus, in my view.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". Although this topic has received a significant amount of coverage in newspapers, that does not necessarily imply that the topic must be suitable for an encyclopedia (note: the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage, and many editors have claimed that this topic lacks those aspects needed for encyclopedic notability.
However, as other editors have pointed out, it is difficult to determine things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage soon after an event has occurred because insufficient time has passed; often, the most we can do is speculate. Many editors pointed to the wealth of news coverage this has received as a reason for keeping the article (i.e. satisfying WP:GNG) and as evidence of broader significance within the history of the Internet. Mz7 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@world_record_egg

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This occurrence has no enduring notability whatsoever. At best it should be a single line somewhere in the instagram article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • KEEP: I understand many editors proclaim to be a "troll" or "insignificant." However, it has set many records and has many accolaids. Instagram does not own, @world_record_egg, so having it under Instagram is taking away the success or the appreciation for the egg itself. If you just set the like record post for your IG post, would you wan't it under Instagram. The egg is a person and has it's own shop, verified check, and anything else it may need to have it's seperate article. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupaDudz (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — SupaDudz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep - It is the most liked online post ever. It has broken numerous records. It has generated significant media coverage. As obscure as the nature of the article is, this is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs)
Why exactly, Greenleader(2), can this 2-line "article" not be incorporated as a factette in the Instagram article. Why exactly does it need its own article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve got to be kidding. Trillfendi (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect on the condition that there is truly extensive information about the egg on the wiki most liked insta page. No I was not joking, and the lack of arguments about notability shows that instead of the argument being about the coverage and significance of the page, instead editors have chosen to talk about the content of the page as a justifiable means for deletion. As ridiculous as it looks, it has broken numerous records; over 33 million as of typing this have liked the post! I would personally hope that there can be a page on this in the future, however accept the consensus is instead for an extensive section about the egg on the most liked insta post wiki page. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is predicated on the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. You possibly missed that bit. The consensus is not for "an extensive section about the egg on the most liked insta post wiki page". The consensus is merely get rid of this stupid article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resupporting keep and reverting the decision to redirect as opposed to my original points for keep. The subject of the article even now is still recieving media coverage, and appears to be perfectly in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest to sceptics that you check out Wiki's list of unusual articles; all valid pages but are a bit out of the ordinary, however nevertheless are just as deserving of having a page as some famous politician or celebrity. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other AfD (which concerned the Instagram account behind the post) was closed with a speedy delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the significant coverage in the media as well as the fact it has the most likes ever on an Internet post means it has passed the basic notability guidelines? Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The egg post has accrued a significant amount of coverage in WP:RS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flooded with them hundreds: the egg passed "Despacito" in likes earlier on 14 Jan. This is pending a WP:RS to confirm, of course. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SamHolt6, Yes, you're right! I completely missed it because few days ago some bumbling fans were discussing how the song still had higher likes.-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that WP:NOTNEWS is policy, by virtue of that bit at the top of the page that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." This article is a text-book example of what wikipedia is not. Per my question to another keeper: exactly why can this not be covered adaquately in an instagram article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is a policy shortcut under the WP:NOT umbrella, but this is semantical; it remains policy. I think however that this topic is one of the exceptions (NOTNEWS throws the caveat usually in its text) given the claim to significance the article has. As for the WP:PAGEDECIDE inquest, I am of the view that the topic should remain a separate stub or start class article (which PAGEDECIDE alots for) on the basis of the sheer amount of coverage received.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StraussInTheHouse: Evidently you’re unaware of Egg Gang. How many more “world record egg” pages will keep being created for this viral trend if we don’t get a handle on it?
  • Keep: While there are good arguements on both sides, I do think this article should remain in Wikipedia. While its topic is rather strange, it has become the most liked post/content on any social media platform, which is noteworthy. However, this article does need some cleanup and extension. This is not really the fault of any editor, this is simply because it has not had time to fully develop as a topic. However, if the topic does not further develop, or more contests like this appear it should be deleted. Also: I have been heard that there are multiple pages on this topic, I hope that they can be merged. AceTankCommander (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The inclusion test for Wikipedia content is not just whether it's on the pop culture radar today — to warrant a Wikipedia article, what would have to be shown is a substantive reason why this would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance. That is, the question that needs to be answered, to make this notable enough for its own article, is why will people still care about it in 2029? Wikipedia's supposed to be about stuff that matters. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Bearcat says. Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the "Ten-year test" is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The use of this "thought experiment" test is not required to warrant a Wikipedia article whatsoever. North America1000 16:46, 15 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 15. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The decision to delete a page should not be decided by a small group's personal opinions about social media not being "real news." The account is clearly noteworthy, as a holder of at least three world records. Furthermore, it has been covered by the media hundreds of times by now, and it is very likely that it will continue to accrue significance as time continues. As to the argument that it should only be listed on the List of Most Liked posts page, I would argue that the account and its world record post should NOT be merged, as there is easily more to say about the account than a single number listing how many likes its post has. Grumpig (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Grumpig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • DELETE IT!!! This is the 2nd page in one day about this egg account that has come across the AfD over this. We don’t need one page of this let alone two. The first page should have been merged or redirected to the List of Instagram records. “I started a joke” is not notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nixinova: It was literally the same, exact article with a different name. It wasn’t just a “similar” article. Wikipedia doesn’t allow two articles of one thing. Use your brain. Trillfendi (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 04:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing on Wikipedia as "temporarily notable pending the need for future hindsight, just because it happens to currently be in the news" — either a thing has already attained enough notability to satisfy the ten-year test for permanent notability, or it's not notable enough for an article at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's making any predictions. What has to be shown, to qualify it for a Wikipedia article, is that it has already achieved something that already passes the ten-year test — it's not enough to say that we don't know that it won't still be a topic of interest in 2029, because that's not where the burden of proof lies: the burden of proof lies on showing that it will still be a topic of interest in 2029. And current "world record" status doesn't prove that, because the nature of social media is that this could easily have its record outdone three months from now and thus become a forgotten footnote to history by July. Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this will endure, not on anybody to prove that it won't. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gaze into me, and engage in the ten-year test thought experiment
That WP:10 year test is oh so subjective, and requires forming subjective, speculative predictions. Furthermore, there's also a section there that begins with, "Just wait and see." Lastly, it says right atop the page, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." This subjective test is in no way required to qualify an article, nor should it be. North America1000 16:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the "wait and see" isn't about "keep the article pending future evidence that it hasn't endured", it's about "wait until you can show that enduring significance has emerged before you start the article at all". Secondly, per WP:ONLYESSAY, we have policies in place to tell us what to do, and guidelines to tell us how we've decided our best practices for actually doing policies work in actual practice — so essays are still every bit as binding as policies are, in the absence of a really compelling reason to make a special exception to them. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge proposal is a diversion and a Canard. Those articles have been deleted already.
No doubt the article will be renamed. But that is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I don't think we should start a precedent of giving every internet sensation a page. This is not Ellen. Every internet sensation gets coverage in RS, that is why it is a sensation. But they inevitably fade away. This is also the first precedent I know of for making a page for a social media ACCOUNT. The article is not about the person behind it or the sensation that it got likes, but about the page itself. I just don't think this is what WP is for, ultimately. Anyway, that's all I have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cid, el campeador (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thorne, Dan (14 January 2019). "Egg photo breaks Kylie Jenner's record for most liked image on Instagram". Guinness World Records. Retrieved 15 January 2019.
  • France, Lisa Respers (14 January 2019). "Meet the egg that broke Kylie Jenner's Instagram record". CNN. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  • Hugh McIntyre (August 9, 2017). "Here Are All The Records 'Despacito' Broke On YouTube". Forbes. Retrieved 14 January 2019. (struck 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Ohlhieser, Abby (14 January 2019). "Congratulations to this egg on becoming Instagram's most-liked post ever". Washington Post. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  • "Egg Photo Bests Kylie Jenner for Most Popular Instagram Post". Time. Retrieved 14 January 2019.(added 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
Balkywrest (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with ssr. No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Practically everything is, or at least can be, an internet phenomenon. This is not a fascinating example of how modern society can interact in the internet. It's just a picture of an egg. Additionally, the argument: "We can always delete it later" is absurd. We can not simply create articles that lack notability, because one day it might be notable. If that day ever comes, it can be made then. If we start making articles about every internet anomaly, Wikipedia would be flooded with thousands of meaningless articles. Remember Youtube Rewind 2018? That was a little over a month ago. It's already completely out of the public eye. Lastly, you must admit that the comparison with Despacito is incredibly weak. That is a song, with a cast, crew, production team, budget, etc. It is a well defined entity, that exists independent of any specific platform. Many songs have entries even without the notability that Despacito had. This post, on the other hand, is nothing more than a picture on a social media website. It's entire existence is limited to a specific page on a specific website. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind? --NoCOBOL (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in waiting for an disinterested editor to close this by their own volition. Further, AfDs are not a head-count. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based reason given for deletion. Balkywrest (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't there is a rule that requires reasons to be based on policy. Policies are non-binding anyway, so if a user feels that the information on a page is useless, that is just as valid as a policy saying so. They both have the same power if other users agree, and conversely, are both meaningless if other users don't agree. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Removed comment per below. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Puzzledvegetable: See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This exact argument is listed as one to avoid in deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-Edit conflict- Unneccessary comment on another user's vote. Whoever closes the AfD can weigh the value of votes themselves. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References to children's fairy tales do not justify keeping an absurd article. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though this point wasn't mentioned, I think it's worth bringing up that this does not meet BLP1E – "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Yes, this is surely well documented and, as displayed by the name @world_record_egg, they did seek publicly with these actions.
Nomination is also of a current event that has attracted international attention. When the publicity dies down, maybe reconsider then? But for now, this should stay up.
Given the dozens of sources found on Google within minutes of starting a search, this passes GNG.
Seems to me that there is no reason to delete. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As there is an overwhelming majority !voting "delete" (even if the one SPA is taken into account), I am not draftifying this at this moment. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulden (digital currency)


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

No evidence of notability, largely uncited, one RS and some crypto blogs. This is cut-down from a much more blatantly promotional version [21], cited to primary sources and crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Parool is the RS that you are talking about, this then means that you think sportnext.nl is a "crypto blog", which it most clearly is not. It seems you are overly hasty in your rush to purge this article, first you attempted a WP:PROD despite it clearly not being the reasonable way forward and now you don't even do basic fact checking in your claim of no notability. If you think sportsnext is a "cryptoblog" then how hard could you possibly have searched to determine notability? I'd say not at all... (102.182.161.211 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Het Parool "Internet buys wildly at the Gulden of this Amsterdammer" is about the price rise in October 2016. They do not know why it went up "Waar de plotselinge run op zijn Gulden vandaan komt, weet hij niet./He does not know where the sudden run on his Gulden comes from." Sportnext does not appear to be a reliable source. Their twitter account says "SPORTNEXT is de grootste sportmarketingcommunity van Nederland./SPORTNEXT is the largest sports marketing community in the Netherlands." The article "Collaboration FootGolf and digital payment means Gulden; partnership of the future?" has no named author and is most likely a press release or paid promo. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While that may or may not be true (different argument) - it does not change the fact that the original assertion is wrong, he claims that of the four current sources in the article one is a RS and one is a "crypto blog" and this is an inaccurate claim. Changing the argument does not change the inaccuracy of this claim, and the fact remains that anybody who is making such an inaccurate claim is likely either biased or not actually even reading the links in question - or both. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(102.182.161.211 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC))— 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Review of sources
RTV Noord which is a local radio station.
OOG [nl] more local news.
RTL Z seems like a more significant publication but interviews aren't independent coverage. Same for Business Insider.
I think there is a general misapplication of what 'notability' is going on here, criteria for source inclusion are not the same as criteria for whether an article should exist or not. The former is more to do with "whether it is first hand information or not" while the second is more to do with "is this a subject which has attracted public interest or not", to quote "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" While a source like the above would not meet the criteria for inclusion within an article, an interview like this does show that there was clearly a lot of public and media interest in Gulden at the time, alone it does not make notability but if combined with the dozens of other articles, the independent market survey showing large support for Gulden in the Netherlands and so on it does. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think this is an accurate translation of the Dutch Linux Magazine article (Google Translate says the Dutch pdf is too large). It's the most detailed but I don't think it's the most reliable. It seems to be a guest article. See the "Write for Us" page in the English version.
Even if this were true (that it is a guest article), magazines do not have to print articles that are submitted and do have editorial oversight, they have not printed a giant disclaimer stating that its a guest view. Further after a bit more searching, it appears they even considered it important enough to include on the cover https://klant.reshift.nl//STORE1//lin_jaar.png
From a magazine perspective you usually put on the cover what you think will sell copies, this suggests that the magazine considers Gulden a notable enough subject that it should be on the cover to sell copies. While not a huge thing on its own it again speaks towards general notability. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Feature in the bank's magazine doesn't let me copy the text. But the cover and pages 16-24 show that Gulden isn't the only cryptocurrency topic covered. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles about cryptocurrency one to do with Bitcoin and one to do with Gulden amongst many other pages that are not to do with cryptocurrency. The magazine is not about cryptocurrency but they felt the public would want to read about Gulden, this again shows a pattern of interest/notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Additional source
A few more sources from searching, still dozens to work through, strangely I seem to be the only person here actually looking for sources while the people calling for deletion seem unwilling to perform any search whatsoever (this speaks to a possible bias on their behalf)
Five "crypto blog" articles, not really that noteworthy, but again it all adds up toward notability
Market researchers and crypto blogs still don't pass WP:RS, even as you keep posting them - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Market researchers ... still don't pass WP:RS". Though you repeatedly attempt to claim that WP:RS does not in fact say that at all, it appears that for some reason you consider your opinion to be fact and beyond question. Why not let others comment on the link, I'm sure its more the content you find objectionable than the source, you also (delibritely?) ignore all of the other sources only in favour of talking about "crypto blogs" this shows your anti crypto currency bias, you shouldn't be involved in crypto currency articles at all as you clearly are unable to remain objective. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
RTL Z "Cryptocurrencies: not only bitcoin, but also potcoin and gulden" focus is not on gulden but a general video about cryptocurrency. They put up IOTA's logo at 0:15 and PotCoin's at 1:53 but not for Gulden.
AT5 local news. Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further sources
First link was already posted 5 days ago below.
Emerce [nl] probably a reliable source only if it's written by "Redactie Emerce/Editor Emerce" (they have a lot of non-staff writers). Though the Dutch Wikipedia article is lacking citations including that part you quoted. And the third Emerce link was submitted by a Gulden person "Dit artikel is een ingezonden bericht en valt buiten de verantwoordelijkheid van de redactie./This article is a sent message and is not the responsibility of the editors." Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet more sources
Dagblad van het Noorden asks me to register to view the full article and the second link is about the same thing anyway. Quote magazine sources look okay to me. If you think this is truly notable could you please make an article in Dutch, because this isn't something non-Dutch speakers would hear about. Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've located a copy (can't guarantee it is 100% exactly the same) of the article here https://guldenbites.com/nl/2018/06/01/media-dagblad-vh-noorden-gulden-verovert-groningen for those who are unwilling to do the free registration to read the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.166.30 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak delete - I considered nominating this myself when I removed some of the cruft from the article this morning. Most of the coverage in sources has the tone of press releases and some of the other coverage is passing in nature. I'm not familiar enough with Dutch sources to be able to make a strong statement in support of deleting, but at least some of the sources do seem like cryptoblogs. We really need to hammer out a guideline for cryptocurrencies and related topics. For now, this does not seem to quite meet WP:SIGCOV.- MrX 🖋 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT / WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I question how hard you have looked for RS coverage. A further few minutes searching has revealed.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/02/07/je-hoeft-blockchain-niet-te-snappen-6572486-a1544900 (fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant - might not cover the technical details as much as would be liked but that is not relevant for notability)
http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-nederlandse-beleggers-cryptovaluta-dit-jaar (Large survey agency conducts significantly sized survey on crypto investments and considers Gulden notable enough to mention it)
http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-crypto-investeerders-met-100-000-afgenomen (Same survey agency conducts follow up survey and this time finds Gulden notable enough to state its percentage - stating that of the estimated 480000 Dutch crypto traders 56% hold some Bitcoin while 21% hold Gulden - agency clearly considers this significant to the point that they continue tracking it over time)
These are just the first few I stumbled on, a quick search has turned up a list of dozens upon dozens of newspaper articles or references that need to be trawled through. (102.182.161.211 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Marketing agencies who talk about how to "grow your brand" are not WP:RSes, and particularly not for crypto coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That you (probably deliberately) confuse/misrepresent an independent market research group; one of the largest in the world, and that is cited in various other wikipedia articles as a "marketing agency" speaks volumes about your bias here. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I see you're working hard on convincing others. In any case, market researchers quite definitely do not pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NRC Handelsblad "fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant" but it's not. "Drie ondernemers leggen uit hoe zij de wereld overtuigen van blockchain/Three entrepreneurs explain how they convince the world of blockchain" from three different organizations and most of it is quotes. Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Major newspaper does an article on blockchain, of the thousands of currencies and even more entrepreneurs in the space, they pick only 3. One of those 3 is Gulden and is given a significant amount of space in the article. Why? Clearly because they think people want to hear about Gulden. I don't see how you can possibly claim that is not significant, it speaks to notability which is exactly what article inclusion/deletion is about. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Of the thousands" will be limited to those in the Nederlands and available to interview. Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly as more than software but as a currency project WP:NSOFT which is intended for articles about more conventional software does not apply here, if it did -all- cryptocurencies outside of Bitcoin and potentially maybe Ethereum would need to be removed, I do not see WP:NSOFT being applied in other cases therefore this would be inconsistent. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.154.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a failing argument at AFD, so probably doesn't achieve what you want - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with articles about all cryptocurrencies outside of Bitcoin being deleted? I, and I'm sure many other editors, would be very happy if that happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It is in the public interest to be able to find out unbiased information about cryptocurrencies, and the Gulden wikipedia entry should be part of that Gulden is considerably less controversial than many cryptocurrencies as it is over 5 years old, and was not started as a get rich quick ICO. With regards to notability Gulden has been used by up to 150,000 users and Gulden has attracted controversy, which is notable by itself. The developers have published, developed and implemented innovative blockchain techniques which justifies the term 2nd generation blockchain. The fact that this is not more widely known I would argue is a case to make the wikipedia entry more detailed rather than deleting it or removing much of the content continually on the grounds that it is just marketing. I would argue that technical details of the unique features of Gulden are interesting and are verifiable from the source code and the developers whitepaper. The Developers claim to be making innovation in blockchain technology and the success or failures of the progress should be documented in the entry.
WP:NSOFT Does not apply as Gulden is a Blockchain, not a software product
WP:NORG Does not apply again, as Gulden is a blockchain and associated community based infarstrcure which does include some organisations but is not in itself an organisation 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBelshaw55 (talk • contribs) — JBelshaw55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The best source is the Het Parool article published in October 2016 when the price was going up a lot and they didn't know why (pump and dump?). The other sources are local news, interviews, features in minor publications (Linux Magazine and that bank's magazine), or otherwise not reliable sources. Not good enough. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These [22] [23] short articles in Emerce could be useful, but still a delete for me. Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update Neutral on deletion now per [24] [25] [26] Quote magazine sources. Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based argument given by this IP. Balkywrest (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. The one source I found that actually talks about the company is listed as a scam when I went looking for reviews. Search of Google, Google Books, Google News has nothing significant about the Gulden. Of the sources cited above, the ones I checked look like they mention Gulden, but not talk in depth about the comapny itself. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT Does not apply as this article is not about an organisation but a decentralised currency.
Criticism of the multitude of sources already listed is vague, weak, based on speculation and seems more like an out of hand dismissal of the sources by someone who made up their mind in advance as opposed to an actual application of thought toward the sources or reading of them. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ORGCRIT says: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The citations you mention talk about where the Gulden can be used, not about the specifics of the company and the hows and whys of the currency. Hacked.com had a good article about just that, but I'm not seeing other significant coverage, and it doesn't seem WP:RS. Endless links to mentions of the Gulden do not go towards notability. Significant does not equal lots and lots. WP:BLUD. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources (business insider)
Seems business insider have been quite consistently and frequently covering Gulden over the last few years.
  • Delete: While it's clear there are many unregistered users bombarding blogposts and unreliable sources, there are a few good ones in the batch. This would lean me towards a weak keep, however:
  • It's unclear to me whether or not any of these actually establish notability
  • The article is currently written like an advertisement
I think the best approach would be to delete the article and let it be resubmitted through AfC. If there truly is significant coverage and notability, it will be re-added to the encyclopedia without a hitch. Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk of blog posts are simply inaccurate, while you may question the quality of some of the sources to suggest they are blog posts shows a lack of proper diligence on your behalf.
Note that the article allegedly reading like an advertisement is not reason for deletion. "When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." - if it reads like this it should be improved and not deleted, submit an edit that makes it read less like an advert. The main reason the article is likely so short is that a single editor has consistently and for a long period of time deleted all efforts at improving the page instead of making use of the appropriate processes to facilitate improvement.
Calling for an article to be deleted so that it can go through AfC is silly, the page is here already, if there is any doubt about its removal then it should not be removed. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Draftify, i note that most of the defense of this article here has been made by an ip who has made no other contributions to WP (apart from the article), they have also bombarded this afd with numerous (over 35?) sources, all/most of which appear to be questionable, suggest that this goes to draft so that it can be worked on for submission to afc. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADHOM is not a valid deletion reason. Criticism of sources is vague and makes no attempt to engage in the source discussion, it appears unlikely you have read any of the sources. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
It appears unlikely that you read what i wrote, i did not say delete as you imply. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article some more thought and I agree that a draftify could be appropriate in place of a deletion. The WP:SPA has dumped many sources, and if some can be verified to establish notability it should get through AfC without a problem - however the current article does not reflect that, and if you could somehow argue it did then you would really have to go look at the dozens of other deleted cryptocurrency articles and contest them the same. Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note on the majority of delete voters on this page
There is an emerging pattern amongst delete voters - Every single delete voter makes only vague criticism of the sources with no attempt to properly engage with them, it appears extremely likely they have not even properly looked at them. The only delete voter Џ who has properly engaged with the discussion and shown any attempt at some kind of proper source review has changed his vote to Neutral. All delete voters thus far are also in violation of WP:IGNORINGATD - it is therefore clear that they are less interested in upholding a proper process than they are in seeing this article go due to WP:IDL and that most of these votes boil down to WP:JUSTAVOTE (102.182.166.30 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK, you are not helping your cause. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COI query posted to IP's talk page - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 23 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 21:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th' Corn Gangg

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the topic. -- Flooded with them hundreds 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They actually got a robust concert review ([27]) and were noted for supplying a remix of a Beck song, but otherwise they only existed for a few months and apparently had no official releases of their own. The band is already mentioned as a brief offshoot at The Unicorns and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There's a fairly significant piece here from Pitchfork, which is exactly the kind of reliable source that goes a long way to meeting WP:MUSICBIO, but apart from a couple of lines about their set at SXSW 2005 (Pitchfork again) and a short blurb from LA Weekly, I couldn't find much else. Unless some more coverage turns up, I think this probably belongs better as an addendum to The Unicorns for the time being. — sparklism hey! 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Pitchfork piece definitely ain't nothing, but it also ain't enough all by itself — the real notability claim here has far less to do with Jamie and Nick actually having done anything noteworthy under this name, and more to do with being a shortlived transitional footnote between two much more notable bands. But it's a bit of an X vs. Y problem as to whether Unicorns or Islands would be the better redirect target — so both articles should probably mention this, with the result that if somebody searches for it they'll both come up in the results anyway, but we shouldn't privilege one band over the other in terms of where this was pointed as a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 15 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 Kunle Afolayan. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Effects Pictures

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH at this time as far as I can tell. For example, Google News shows only mentions of the company itself despite good coverage of its films and certain directors. If anyone identifies substancial coverage in reliable sources, please ping me, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Leaning keep, haven't looked at these[28] yet. Because of the business, it is hard to separate the company, CEO/producer/director/actor, movies,… so this article[29] is talking about many aspects of the company. I was looking at Monkeypaw Productions as an example of a production company. Also, the article could be renamed just "Golden Effects" with redirects for the distribution "Pictures", production "Studio", and "Services". Or just leave as Pictures with the others redirecting. StrayBolt (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much directly about the company that isn't Afolayan's own words in interview. We need at least two sources each with at leat one long paragraph or two directly about the company that is not just Afolayan talking, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being labeled "10 most popular Nollywood production companies of the 90s, 2000s" would suggest notability, perhaps Cunard (talk · contribs) can find additional sources. Valoem talk contrib 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't in the "10 most popular Nollywood production companies of the 90s, 2000s", it is perhaps a new one to replace the old. StrayBolt (talk) 22:43, 29 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) 23:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5ive (web series)

5ive (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent failure of WP:NWEB due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 28 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 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skeem (2011 film)

Skeem (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales Of Nazir. SITH (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a little hard finding stuff out there, since it kind of seems like not all of the South African media outlets put their work online, but I did find some coverage. It looks like there was a huge kerfuffle a few years back about someone copying his film. I also found where the film's title track was covered in a book (looks like this was specifically made for the film). I only made brief mention of this in the article since I didn't really want to work on a big soundtrack section at this point in time. I don't think that the award the film received is major enough to really keep on that alone, but the amount of coverage that the film festival and the award win received show that it's something that should give at least partial notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as perWP:HEY as the article has been substantially improved since nomination including content referenced to multiple reliable sources coverage such as National newspapers including a secondary review in the South African Mail and Guardian, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is now sufficient coverage - notability may also be satisfied via the award route. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:01, 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. Partial Consensus that there is sufficient notability for articles to be retained and overwhelming consensus that a mass nomination was unsuitable and that individual nominations are required for articles lacking suitable sourcing - after a more in-depth BEFORE sweep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axe of Vengeance

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

Please note I am also nominating the following articles with this one because they are all non-notable films released in the same country and the articles are authored by the same user:

Moms at War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hell or High Water (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beneath Her Veil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Affairs of the Heart (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Hotel Called Memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As with the Ghanian film articles created by this user (for which a separate AfD is open), these films fail WP:NFILM. Some, such as A Hotel Called Memory, have won awards, but all of these awards are minor ones which don't confer notability per WP:NFILM. None of them appear to have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG either. SITH (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, and keep at least A Hotel Called Memory. Regarding the first point, there's no realistic reason to believe that a set of Nigerian films are all going to have the same level of coverage or notability needed to avoid making this a trainwreck of a bundled nomination. And, indeed, I'm fairly certain that at least one of these films easily meets the inclusion threshold. Two of the sources currently cited are articles in The Guardian – not that one, but this one, which is still unquestionably a reliable source. Additional sources are not hard to find. Some of these other listed films have, shall we say, less easily searchable titles, but at a minimum, there's no reason to consider them in a bundled nomination with inadequate prior source surveys. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Squeamish Ossifrage. This same editor nominated the late Ghanaian actor Kwame Owusu-Ansah which I found sources and edited. Terrible nominations! A procedural close and keep is in order until editors have time to go through each individual article and check sources for them to determine notability. Wiki is not going anywhere. The nominator has been told to do WP:BEFORE nominating. I am very concerned about their nominations. Keep and close.Tamsier (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as reliable sources coverage has been identified in the comments above such as significant secondary coverage in national newspapers such as The Guardian (Nigeria). It is also poor practice to bunch nominate films that only have the country of origin as a similarity, these should have been nominated seperately, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Waste of AFD patrollers time. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Stoken

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

A financier and author. He has written 7 books on finance but none of them has many reviews on Amazon. Google News and Google itself don't return much that could be used to satisfy WP:V. Tagged for notability since 2010. There are two refs in the article the first of which points to a book store - where his books are listed as out of print. Szzuk (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Most of the references are based on his 1978 book predicting a depression was coming and everyone should sell their stocks. Extreme market views always generate a lot of press at the time but WP:NOTNEWS. The S&P 500 was at about 96 then and is now at 2664 so it wasn't a very accurate forecast. Not seeing the coverage to convince me the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 3 of the 10 reviews/articles are about his 1978 book - that is not "most". How is the accuracy of his forecasts relevant to his notability? One of the articles about his work actually says that his analysis wasn't accurate - the point is that other people wrote about him and his work. The first article, from 1966, is 26 paras long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my original vote. Not convinced either way. Think I'm biased against those seeking to cause panic for their own notoriety.Sandals1 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]
That is generous of you! I have to admit that I looked into him in the first place because I'm biased against AfD nominations that don't look past Google (or Amazon!!!) for subjects which predate the digital era. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:38, 28 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 deleted by RHaworth per WP:A10. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Gang

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

Other entries on the List of most-liked Instagram posts do not have their own articles. I believe world_record_egg can't really be expanded upon enough to warrant its own article. lovkal (talk) 17:17, 14 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination though I suggest separate nominations. Courtesy ping StraussInTheHouse. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tales Of Nazir

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

Fails film notability guidelines. I am also nominating two similar articles made by the same user for the same reason:

Agyakoo Gbegbentus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Potato Potahto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sidechic Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The fourth of these articles details a film which did receive some award nominations but these awards in themselves are not notable and hence are not enough to satisfy WP:NFILM. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There were several more articles similar to these four, very short stubs about a Ghanaian film with scant sources, all by the same editor. In the majority of these cases that I've seen, I was able to find other coverage either in a web search or in a Google Scholar search that indicated that the subject met NFILM. That having been said, I was unable to find such coverage for Tales of Nazir or Agyakoo Gbegbentus, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone better versed in Ghanaian RS could dig something up. signed, Rosguill talk 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to cast aspersions, just pointing out that the set of similar articles is larger than the ones nominated here. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My previous keep !vote was solely about the movie Potato Potahto. Agyakoo Gbegbentus isn't a notable film; A Google search of the film doesn't show it being discussed in reliable sources. Sidechic Gang on the other hand appears to be semi-notable; although the film didn't receive reliable reviews, it was nominated for several awards at the 2018 AMAA.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I have a feeling this is going on (or off) the same rails as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance. Both were crappy bundlings, for which I apologise. I see that the community prefers more separate AfDs as opposed to fewer tenuously linked bundles nominations. If you close it as trainwreck, please ping me so I can renominate the appropriate ones per the above consensus. Thanks, SITH (talk) 23:11, 3 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Waite

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

Not Significant and Independent References. WP:MUSICBIO ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 14 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Owusu-Ansah

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

Insufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG. Fails the criteria at NACTOR. If notability is established, a total rewrite is also needed because it reads like an advert. SITH (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added refs and content.Tamsier (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These sources don’t provide notability as an actor. Trillfendi (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the above sources aren't sufficient, here's a biographical article about him in a Ghanaian film media magazine. I'll admit, I got lucky on this one, because very little regional print media shows up in online searches. Regardless, he was a significant actor in Ghanaian and Nigerian media during his life, and his death attracted considerable media attention. The article is in pretty bad shape, but AFD isn't cleanup. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a pass of WP:GNG or a verifiable pass of WP:NACTOR#1, though only one of those is necessary. Subject was starring in a popular soap opera at the time of his death, so no surprise that the coverage of that dominates, but you can also find some old Graphic coverage here and there. The article could use some work, but so could Wikipedia's coverage of African subjects generally, and deletion is not a solution to either of those issues. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 5 February 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 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Bell

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

Fails WP:NFP. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 14 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 keep but someone please work on the references. Tone 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Wolman

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

A composer and music teacher. The article is tagged for notability and has no refs. There are a couple of external links which demonstrate he is a composer and teacher. All I could find on google is [36] and little else. Szzuk (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wedogood

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

References fail the criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability as they are based on company announcements or interviews or are from self-published sources with no editorial oversight. HighKing++ 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:22, 14 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 Crumbächer. Spartaz Humbug! 12:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Beach

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

Completely fails to satisfy WP:NALBUM. While there are a few available reviews, there are no sources that satisfy all three of Sig Cov/Reliable & independent.

Redirect - (to Crumbächer) Along with the band itself, is the only one I felt could potentially be disputed. (The other albums have been redirected for now) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:21, 14 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) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Room Candidate

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

Fails WP:NWEB. The only review I can find is this which was published just after the launch, suggesting no lasting coverage. DGG de-prodded it but a source search suggests this isn't the case. I wouldn't be averse to redirecting it to American Museum of the Moving Image. SITH (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be averse to merging it either, retaining all of the information. We should then do similarly for each of their major holdings of this sort. It's an extremely important museum and its collections and publciation deserve detailed treatment--though not to the level of individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is coverage of the website in Newspapers.com from 2004, when it was updated 4 years after it was created - eg a Florida paper publishing a story from the NYT [44], the Detroit Free Press [45], The Tampa Tribune [46]. There is also coverage in eg the Los Angeles Times [47], and the NYT published in the St Louis Post-Dispatch [48], of a video exhibition called 'The Living Room Candidate - A History of Presidential Campaigns on Television 1952-1992' presented by the Museum of the Moving Image in 1992, which was the original version from which the website developed (as noted on its About page, "Special thanks to the University of Oklahoma Political Commercial Archive for providing material for the original version of The Living Room Candidate, presented in 1992 at the Museum of the Moving Image.") So there is certainly enough coverage available to improve the article so that it meets WP:NWEB: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." I haven't checked scholarly articles or books yet - there may be more there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen. Check Google Books - this website is often mentioned among educational sources to explore for politics related issues. I added several citations to the article. --Gprscrippers (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 14 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pixton

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

As far as I can tell, does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. A discussion on the talk page from six years ago says that the Morgan Prize qualifies for criterion #2 of WP:ACADEMIC, but the Morgan Prize is a prize for undergraduate research, and criterion #2 of WP:ACADEMIC specifies that "awards and honors for academic student achievements" are not eligible under this category. I also do not think he is notable under the WP:CHESS notability guidelines, as the championships he have won have been junior championships, which I don't think qualify as "national- or continental championships". I don't see any sources that otherwise would qualify him under WP:GNG. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although technically a "national award," the Morgan Prize is certainly important enough to qualify for notability. Also compare Lisa Sauermann or Reid W. Barton. --bender235 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the Clay Research Fellowship and Sloan Research Fellowship are more indicative. Although they are both early-career awards, they clearly show him to be among the top ranks of mathematicians at his level of seniority. And mathematics is a low- and slow-citation field, so his citation counts on Google scholar of 91, 60, 41 (all for papers from 2015 or later) are actually quite impressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I think the in-depth coverage of some of his mathematical work in the Morgan Prize writeup and the in-depth analysis of his game against Benjamin in Benjamin's book (both independent of the subject and reliably published) go a long way towards WP:GNG, although neither fits the more specialized notability guidelines for academics or chess. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guy is clearly a top-notch mathematician (IMO, Morgan, Clay, Sloan, Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc), on an upward trajectory. I cannot quite tell whether he presently satisfies all of the Wikipedia notability criteria, but he's certainly a notable mathematician. – Turgidson (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Clearly a bright guy, but I'm having trouble finding any notability standard he currently meets. His awards were for early career mathematicians, his h count is 10 and most of his papers were co-authored (with his name never being the first among them), and I question that the GNG is met. I admit I mentioned the h-count since it seems low for math, but it's another of the many areas I know only a little (or nothing) about. I'm wondering if this is WP:TOOSOON or perhaps WP:IAR. Sandals1 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment on a comment: Publishing an 80 pages long paper in Inventiones (in 2018) and having a bunch of papers published in IHES, JAMS, Crelle, G&T, Compositio, etc is in and of itself notable for a research mathematician, at least in my book. As for not being listed as the first author, this is purely a matter of having a last name starting with P: in mathematics, authors are almost always (I'd say, ~99% of the time) listed in alphabetical order, as a matter of established convention. – Turgidson (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this just barely passes the threshold of notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:04, 14 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) 13:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Sokolovskaya

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

Completely unsourced article. Sokolovskaya is a national titleholder but the pageant itself is barely notable and she competed in no international competitions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "She competed in no international competitions"? The article could be better formatted, but it clearly states that she has competed in piano competitions in Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, etc. I have not yet checked if she did win first prize in one, but I certainly find sources confirming that she competed, eg [49], [50]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter why the article was created? The content in the article is largely about her career as a pianist. She could be assessed against WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMODEL or WP:MUSICBIO (or any other relevant criteria). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly, not everything that is notable has a Wikipedia article yet. But I admit, I don't know much about piano competitions - she has competed in many international competitions, one of which has a Wikipedia article, so it is presumably notable. I was trying to work out how to add this AfD to music-related pages, but they all seemed to have automatic alerts for articles already part of music wikiprojects. She also has one album, released in 2018, so perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. I have access to some English-language digitised newspapers, but not in other languages unless they appear in Google searches, so if her performances have been reviewed in other languages, I have not found them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She gets a few ProQuest hits. (I've added one citation to the article.) Her Spanish-language Wikipedia article has some material not included here. Between her career as a pianist and winning a national modelling competition, that satisfies notability criteria and is more than WP:BLP1E. Bondegezou (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Also helpful to search for "Наталья Соколовская", her name in Russian. I've added some more to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to http://natalia-sokolovskaya.com/stati-v-presse and then go into each article, they each end with a link to some press coverage. You need better Russian than me, but there appear to be some reasonable sources there. Bondegezou (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some of those don't work as links, but http://www.volgaru.ru/index.php?oth&article=6035 and http://www.volgaru.ru/index.php?oth&article=5902 do. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qiao Zhang

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

I can find no sources other than documents associated with the lawsuit mentioned in the article and the Pacific Rim Construction articles cited (which have no byline and appear to be based on media releases) that mention, much less establish any claim for the notability of, the subject. The article's author insists that the subject is "internationally acclaimed" (as one of the PRC articles states) and notable, but at this point neither the article content nor the sources cited indicate why the subject would or should be. Being the subject of litigation is certainly not alone a reason for notability. General Ization Talk 05:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, while the creator asserts the subject is "acclaimed", the content of the present article is overwhelmingly negative concerning the subject. It primarily documents a claim that the subject embezzled from his firm, a claim that appears to have been settled under seal and so cannot be readily refuted. An effort at character assassination may be the article's primary purpose for being here. General Ization Talk 13:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage of this person meets WP:BIO. I understand it is not actual policy, but I think Wikipedia:Notability_(architecture)#Architects can inform things, too. In addition to the sources already in the article, his firm's website (though not a third party reference, to be sure) lists some projects that seem important, though I am no expert.[53] And there is at least one Chinese language source that talks more about his old firm's dissolution and lawsuits. [54] In fact, it was an anonymous editor that kept adding this reference to Marshall Strabala that got me to look into this individual and his firm partner for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Google translation of this source leads me to believe there are alternate ways to transliterate this person's name. And I am sure somebody more capable than me can do more effective native searches in Mandarin. Seeing as he is based in China, and based on the English sourcing available, I would expect there to be more references available in Chinese.
Further, despite General Ization's claim that I assert this architect is "acclaimed," if one read's the article, my talk page post, and edit summaries, one would see that I am just reciting what a source said. I have no idea whether his peers (or anybody else) actually acclaim him or not.
And to briefly address what appear to me to be an ad hominem attack on me alleging I had somehow improper motives for creating the article (of course, the article can have no motive for existing, only the article's first editor for creating it), which the General seems to acknowledge is at odds with his (inaccurate) characterization of my view of whether the architect is acclaimed: if this article is "character assassination," the text of the article indicates I am a terrible character assassin, or at least a straightforward and boring one. But I will assume good faith and assume the General did not mean to disparage me personally.
In sum, from what I have read online, I think this individual (if not the article itself) meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No intent to disparage you personally; my comments were an assessment of the present state of the article, and the fact that 80% of it concerns legal claims against the subject rather than their accomplishments led to my speculation. That the firm's Web site may describe some important projects is irrelevant unless it also clearly shows that the subject was somehow important to development or realization of one or more projects. (As near as I can tell, it doesn't, and he is no longer with the firm.) There are two separate AfDs because they are presumably two separate people, and the discussion of the notability or lack of one shouldn't influence the discussion of the other. General Ization Talk 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the firm link I pasted above is his current firm. It looks like he is one of two partners (the other being the subject of the other related article you sent to AfD), so it stands to reason he is involved with some or all of the projects. It looks to me like the page does claim he and his partner were directly involved in those projects. And per N, notability is determined based on the subject, not the state of the article. As for whether to combine the AfD, it is your AfD nomination; I've copied and pasted this comment from the other one. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see some sources about him in Chinese - e.g. [55][56][57], I'm sure there are more. He is linked to the firm in these sources, in particular with the design of the Shanghai Tower. Sources however indicate that Marshall Strabala is the chief architect of the firm, so as simply a partner in the firm, there is some doubt about his individual notability as an architect. Just being involved in a lawsuit is not by itself notable. I'm not really sure what he is known for architecturally outside of his association with Strabala, therefore deletion is a possibility, but I'm leaning towards redirecting it to another article, possibly Marshall Strabala for now. Hzh (talk) 23:43, 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) 10:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I opened the refs and they aren't about him directly. They're about projects of which he was part and litigation in which he was involved. Consequently their value in satisfying GNG is much reduced. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No indication of notability provided, happy to restore if additi9nal sources come to light. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Omran Club

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

No reference is given Shringhringshring (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find any references since they're likely to only be in Arabic, which is a really difficult language for me to search in. That being said, they did lose some match 8-0 in November according to the external link, which I believe technically counts as a reference. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 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) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Withdrawn. The ref noted below looks sufficient for this to pass GNG. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Baer

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. WP:Before isn't returning much (although it is quite a common name). The refs in the article don't say much and the external links appear to be for amusement. Szzuk (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[58] Search for his name and what he is known for, Zome, and you get some results to look through. Is he notable or just quoted or mentioned in passing at times because of his work with domes? A lot to read through and nothing standing out so far. Dream Focus 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The citations already given in the article were sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lots of WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues not relevant to AfD. I added a ref to an 85 page chapter in the book Groovy Science: Knowledge, Innovation, and American Counterculture that covers Baer extensively, and a couple mentions in other publications. Cited sources verify that Baer is an expert in solar energy and domes who popularized these concepts and made significant contributions to the field. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 28 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. clpo13(talk) 18:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Household insecticide D-20

Household insecticide D-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable commercial product. It has been long-orphaned, it has no independent sources, and a web search turns up nothing of significance (mostly just a handful of online retail listings). This topic fails WP:N and WP:GNG. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. Refs have been added which indicate notability. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Rivera

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

A non notable individual. There are no refs in the article, just a link to his website. The article details a fairly regular life and wp:before isn't returning anything to satisfy gng. Tagged for notability and relatively few edits over the years. Szzuk (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are plenty of sources WP:NEXIST, eg Pensamiento y arte en los 90 [59], Leonard's Price Index of Latin American Art at Auction [60], Handbook of Latin American Studies: Humanities [61], and that's without even looking for articles and reviews in newspapers and journals. WP:BEFORE: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, ... or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the time you took to quote policy you could have added those refs to the article. Szzuk (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could have, and I often do during AfDs. However, when they are as easily findable as in this case, anyone could add them - it does not need access to subscription services to find and read these sources and add them as citations, as WP:BEFORE suggests. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty easy to add refs too. (If you believe in them). Szzuk (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, editors are under no obligation to add sources that they find/list at afds, and the above comment is a disservice to editors such as RebeccaGreen, who carry out the research that, given what has been found above, some nominators apparently cant be bothered with. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is a personal attack- see WP:NPA. This matter appears resolved so your comment is not helpful. As a result of this conversation I've explicitly stated I've carried out WP:Before on subsequent AfD's. Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's still work to be done, but I've added some additional citations and links. From the Spanish language research readily available he does appear notable and multiple sources mention his consideration as one of the masters of 20th century Mexican art. The article just needs to be improved by editors who can do Spanish language research. Sdegennaro (talk) 14:18, 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 draftify. czar 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davina veronica

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

Appears to be an non notable personality. Unicorn212 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 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 21:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People's Party (India)

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

I've declined CSD (nominated under G11 and A7) because to my mind it reaches the CCS bar and is not unduly promotional. I lack the familiarity with Indian political topics to assess its notability and so am sending it to AfD for consideration. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Noble

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

Appears to be a non-notable politician who was elected to a local school board. There is a single HuffPo story and one from what looks like a local paper out there from when he was elected to the school board (referencing his youth and political affiliation), but that's about it. Article has been deleted twice before this. valereee (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a national director of a national organization, seems notable enough and given outsized coverage for his one schoolboard position (normally hardly covered at all in local pages). JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The national organization has 1500 members, I think. valereee (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the NPOL “Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” No general notability qualifications are shown here at all. Trillfendi (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website for the Socialist Party USA states that the subject is a national co-chair. WP:POLOUTCOMES mentions that leaders of national political parties may be kept, "despite their party's lack of electoral success." Using this criteria, the stories about the subject's school board election and article in the Huffington Post and mentions in other stories about the party lead to a WP:GNG pass. The previous XfD discussions occurred before his election as national co-chair. --Enos733 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being national cochair of a small political party is not a free notability pass that automatically entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, sourcing be damned — it can get a person over the bar if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but it does not make him so critically important for us to cover that having to source him properly becomes optional. But the references here are a Blogspot blog, two blurbs tangentially covering stray facts about the party which completely fail to even mention Noble's name at all in the process, and two raw tables of election results — so not even one of the sources actually present in the article is contributing squat toward making him notable at all. And if literally all you can find on the Google for new sourcing is one piece by a Huffington Post blogger and local media coverage of the type that any school board trustee would simply be routinely expected to receive in his local newspaper, then no, that's not enough coverage to make him special. GNG is not just "count up the Google hits and keep anyone for whom n meets or exceeds 2" — it tests for depth and range and context, not just number. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To start, the sourcing includes a profile in NJ.com, and the Huffington Post article. There is also an article profiling the subject as he ran for a freeholder position in 2011. I would admit, if the subject were just a local school board member (and looking solely at the local elected official position in WP:NPOL), this sourcing would not be sufficient. However the subject is not just a school board member, but also a co-chair of a national political party.
In this case, the NJ.com and RedBankGreen profiles (independent of the subject and each other) provide a baseline of information to create a verifiable article about the subject, that is more than "he exists." There is no question that the subject is both an elected school board member and a co-chair of Socialist Party USA. There is additional verifiable information about the subject in reliable sources that could flesh out the article (even if each source by itself would not establish notability), through the form of quotations in mainstream newspapers (such as this article in Philly.com), interviews, or in relationship with other activities of the party (such as this AP article about the formation of a socialist USA chapter in Maine). So, I assert that the depth, range, and context equate to a GNG pass for a person who is "worthy of notice" because of his national position, that coverage of the subject exists over a period of time and in different contexts, and that the profiles in the New Jersey papers provide sufficient depth to write a solid article about the subject in combination with other RS material. --Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To start, I already addressed both the NJ.com and Huffington Post sources in the comment you replied to. NJ.com is the local coverage that every school board trustee everywhere could always show, thus not evidence that he's special, and Huffington Post is a second-tier source at best: acceptable for some additional referencing of stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but not in and of itself a notability clincher if it is the strongest evidence of notability on offer. And both of those are covering him in the context of being elected to a school board, not in the context of the role that could actually get him over the inclusion bar, so they're not building a strong case at all.
So let's move on to the new sources: RedBankGreen is an internet-only community hyperlocal, not a notability-making major media outlet — and being quoted about other subjects in newspaper articles that aren't about him doesn't help to bolster his notability if it hasn't already been nailed down by stronger sources, so none of those other sources are contributing a damn thing toward the question of whether he clears GNG or not. We're looking for coverage about him, not coverage about other things in which he happens to give soundbite.
So no, none of this is enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not necessarily local v non-local sources (per se) for a position where "a genuinely substantial and well-referenced article" would generally be kept, but as you wrote in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Denis_Law_(politician), the question is "whether the sources support enough substance about the mayor to make the article worth bothering to read." My position is that the NJ.com profile (which is not usual coverage of a school board election, especially considering NJ.com is a statewide news organization) in combination with the RedBankGreen article and the glancing coverage in other sources, provides sufficient information to draft a substantial article about the subject (again, whose position as co-chair of a national political party, may normally be kept). While we may disagree whether the profiles do provide sufficient substance, those articles do provide information about the subject's educational background and political platform. Other RS articles cover his election to co-chair of Socialist Party USA. --Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Denis Law is or was a mayor, so he's not a relevant comparison here. The inclusion standard for mayors just requires us to be able to write a genuinely substantive article, and doesn't hinge as strongly on the localness or non-localness of the sources per se, but the inclusion standard for school board trustees is (purposely) much tighter and much more restrictive than that. A mayor can sometimes be considered notable without nationalizing sources, although he would still need more coverage than anybody demonstrated Law to actually have (which is why Law got deleted in the end) — but a person always requires much more nationalized coverage before they can be considered wikinotable for serving on a school board. So of the sources which have been shown so far, the couple that are substantively about Pat Noble are covering him only in the not inherently notable context of being elected to a school board, while the sources that have anything to do with the context that might make him notable are all just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people. So no, none of this is enough: the substantive sources are covering him in a non-notable context where a person requires much more coverage than that to be deemed notable in the first place, and the sources that actually verify his potential notability claim aren't substantive at all. And no, the fact that you can combine a couple of substantive sources in a non-notable context with unsubstantive sources that namecheck his existence in a potentially more notable context, while failing to say anything meaningful about his work in that potentially more notable context, does not add up to grounds for special treatment, either — to deem him notable, what we would require is sources that enabled us to write genuinely substantive and informative content about his work as a political party chair. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disagreement about the inclusion standards. My point in making the comparison is that WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES appear to indicate that our community would treat mayors and political party chairs similarly. And, fundamentally, a position embedded in the SNGs is that the positions covered within them are notable and of note for a global encyclopedia (and as such, there is an expectation of a certain amount of verifiable coverage of the subject). But, as it may rightfully be pointed out, a political party chair is not covered in WP:NPOL, and I would not disagree. The proper standard in this case is WP:GNG, which does not discriminate about where verifiable information comes from and about what part of a person's life. In this case, most of the RS coverage of the subject does stem from his election to the school board and there is verifiable coverage of his holding of the position and some actions as a national political party chair. There is more primary source material about his work as political party chair, not currently included in the article - but that is not necessarily bad information, just that we cannot base an "entire article on primary sources" WP:PRIMARY. To me, what we have is RS, independent coverage, of the subject that an article can be based upon, lots of confirmation about the position that would generally make the subject notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES) through primary sources and namechecks and quotes in other articles. Is this the greatest amount of sourcing for a subject - most likely not, but it is a) much more (and much more nationalized) than an average school board trustee, and b) his national party co-chair position makes him an individual that readers of this encyclopedia may be interested in (especially his background, which is all verifiable). This all said, I may be advancing a position that may not gain consensus here, and I am ok with that, but I do think we should think about the broader context of the position a person holds, general interest in similar positions, and whether there is sufficient verifiable information to write an article that is more than "they exist." In any case, if the position is not kept, there should be enough value to redirect to Socialist Party USA. --Enos733 (talk) 00:15, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Tongued Dictionary

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

No evidence of notability. Dream Focus 10:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:39, 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) 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:53, 28 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SCDA Architects

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

Unclear where notability lies here. This is a firm or architects so its not surprising to find sources about buildings where they are mentioned - that is what is expected. However, these references do not discuss the firm of architects, except in passing, it is the buildings and developers they discuss. This appears to be a competent firm of architects who are not yet notable in Wikipedia terms. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:09, 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) 10:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:00, 28 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) 18:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vallelunga

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

This article is 13 years old but is only a single line long, with no references. Perhaps we should turn this into a disambiguation leading to 3 articles, 2 of which are already linked on the page:

Thoughts? – numbermaniac 07:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 07:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this paper, there is a village there of the same name ("Martello, Stelvio and Vallelunga are three small, isolated villages of the Venosta Valley in South Tyrol"), so it is a populated place and notable per WP:GEOLAND. It is also notable as the subject of the genetic study which that paper carried out. We have an article on the Venosta Valley which is a possible merge target. This travel guide confirms that Vallelunga is a side valley, and also gives the German name (Langtaufers) – places in this region are commonly dual-named. If two European languages think a place is notable enough to have a name, then it's notable enough in English to have a Wikipedia article as well. The disambiguation page suggestion is a red herring – that has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, a disambiguation page can be created whatever the outcome here. SpinningSpark 00:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the Italian WP has a disambiguation page for Vallelunga, see here, so no problems with having one here, but agree with Spinningspark above that this is beside the point, Vallelunga meets WP:NGEO and so should be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, now expanded with using sources linked above. SpinningSpark 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark: There's a huge problem, this was originally about the valley near Rome when it was nominated. Now it's about a valley in South Tyrol which are not geographically proximate, and the article lists both places. I'd fix it, but figured here would be a better place to start. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, I've moved my additions to Vallelunga (South Tyrol) and put the article back how it was. I'm probably still at "keep", this book (in Italian) describes cycling through it, although it describes the region as a plateau (pianoro) rather than a valley. There seems to be some other stuff in Italian as well, but I don't feel confident enough to write anything from Italian sources. SpinningSpark 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 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) 11:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elroy Air

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

Fails WP:CORP. One article/source, and while it's behind a paywall, it doesn't look like it's specifically about this startup. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is also about others as listed in Cargo_aircraft#Unmanned_cargo_aircraft, but is still thorough for Elroy. It was openly accessible when created, but I can share it if needed, I subscribe to Aviation Week. Other news: Quartz or The Drive. Could be more apt as an aircraft article if needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I see some non-promotional independent sources on Elroy Air, this doesn't appear notable. $4.6M in seed money is remarkably tiny for an autonomous drone delivery enterprise. --Lockley (talk) 18:57, 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 Keep. There appears to be a consensus that she meets WP:NACTOR and that non-English sources appear to exist. There also appears to be a consensus that the article needs work, but deletion is not clean up. Sheldybett's explaination for relisting does not make sense. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Lössl

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

No real valid sources and/or secondary sources, notability not established Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per own nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find 2 sources related to her. Too little to prove notability? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that she meets WP:NACTOR, which specifically mentions voice actors, as she #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and, from what I can see of the German search results, also #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I don't know how you show that, outside sources related to the films or shows there are fans of. One source I found is an article about stars and their German voice dubbers, ' Synchronsprecher: Star und Stimme - Jippie-jaja, Schweinebacke!' in the Süddeutsche Zeitung [62]. I also note that this is a fairly new article, and some information has been removed as being unsourced. The source I found does have some of that information, so I could put it back in the article. There may well be other sources - I don't have access to older German newspapers and magazines, for example. What are the sources you found, Oshawott? RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Via Google News. Both were in German, and the rest was unrelated (maybe? I don’t know because it was in German). Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have checked the English-language titles of all the films listed, and corrected them and the links to Wikipedia articles about those films. As it was translated from the German Wikipedia article, many of the titles were translations of the German titles, and often quite different from the original English title. I note that only 3 of the 69 listed films are not notable (in the sense of having a Wikipedia article about them). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great, but we do need secondary sources for all of them. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:NACTOR. There is no doubt that she exists and has had numerous significant roles. The article does need better sourcing, but AfD is not clean-up. Google News throws up more than a page of material that could be used to support material in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBecause of the consensus have not reached even Bondegezou after second relist has yet to still stand out. Sheldybett (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Desai

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

There is not even a single ref related to this article. Unicorn212 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Legendary

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

Non-notable music group, fails WP:BAND. Survived a prod in 2011 based on the claim they played on the 2011 Vans Warped Tour however I have been unable to find any RS for this and provided reference does not mention it Greyjoy talk 09:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only release given in the band's discography is to Bright Lights, an E.P. which was self-released. Vorbee (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't do enough or have sufficient impact to be of encyclopedic interest, even if we could find coverage. They appear to have played one date on the Vans Warped Tour (best source I could find: [63]), but this was apparently as winners of a 'battle of the bands' competition to play in their hometown show, and is not in itself a good reason to keep this.. --Michig (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Handsome

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

hyped or just a hoax. Unicorn212 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unicorn212 replaced my PROD with this nomination. To quote the PROD, "There are regurgitations of 3-4 press releases from the first few months of 2014 announcing that say so-and-so has signed, shooting will take place here and there, and so on, but despite the hype there's no evidence that filming ever began. Per WP:NFF this "future" film should not have a stand alone article. There is no obvious redirect target." --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this unreleased film has no significant secondary reliable sources coverage. If it gets released and has rs coverage such as reviews then it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Achiva nidhi

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

not a notable company Unicorn212 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:14, 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) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Previous instances were deleted as promotional and rejected drafts. I can't see these versions but the AfC rejection comment is as relevant to the current version: "The current draft only includes four sources, one of which is the official website. This is insufficient to demonstrate that the subject has received sustained coverage in reliable independent sources required to establish notability.". The routine registration listings provided as references do no more than verify that the company is legally going about its business, and my searches are finding no better than more of the same. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Martin

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

A lawyer doing his job, voicing opinions on a topic in his field - in this case net neutrality. The vast majority of sources are articles about net neutrality that have one or two sentences of quotes from him (i.e. less than 95% of the articles' contents). There are no tangible articles about the person other than corporate PR. This is insufficient to establish notability. All the personal data seems to have been taken from the profile at his place of work. This is not an independent source. There are also questions about the original conception of this article which indicate PR-cruft. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Loveland

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

Subject does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find hardly any coverage - many event listings, but few reports or reviews. There are 2 short sentences in a 15 para article about a self-esteem workshop for domestic violence survivors that someone else ran; one sentence in a report of a golf clubhouse opening; photos accompanying articles about a medical centre opening and a farmer's market. The only significant coverage I can find is this [64] in The Bartlett Express, "Pageant winner helps girls at Youth Villages". I can't even find coverage of the pageant. She doesn't meet WP:NMODEL (even the winners of Ms. International are only listed on that page, they don't have their own articles) or WP:NMUSIC (her recordings are self-released). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage with just minor mentions in a couple of local newspapers promoting musical appearances. The majority of references in the article are unreliable social media platforms (YouTube, Twitter and Facebook). Fails WP:NMUSIC and does not meet notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:38, 17 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. as a WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes

Nick Fuentes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete (as proposer) - Page's content isn't any indicative of the subject's notability. We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here. If merging to a larger related article isn't viable, this article should be deleted. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads entirely like an advertisement for this teenage clown's video of hatred. Fails WP:GNG as sources have no significant coverage on major events the subject has participated, only passing and recentist references. Some random alt-right figure deserves no "documentations" of them here anyway, we're not a platform for hatred. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's a close one. I consider the self-published sources in no way indicative of notability. However, the coverage in Time, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune is independent and reliable. However, I am erring on the side of caution because:
  1. The majority of major media coverage both cited by the article and revealed by my own source searches refers not to Fuentes as an individual but as part of a collective group of far-right youths who attended the Unite the Right rally.
  2. The only major, reliable coverage he's received is in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally and there appears to have been no sustained coverage since. This leads me to believe that he fails BLP1E.
  3. Large portions of the article are supported by self-published or questionable sources.
  4. The article, in its current form, is rather promotional.
Edit: while I wholeheartedly agree with Tsumikiria's sentiments, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that people who spread hatred can, and in some cases, are notable because they have received sustained coverage, such as Richard Spencer. It doesn't mean we have to like what they say.
TL;DR: delete per WP:BLP1E. SITH (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have wrote longer to clarify. I agree with what you said. What I meant was that such random alt right clowns don't deserve a place here. Our responsibility was to document high profile ones so that the public can read about them here. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Don't think he's notable enough. Skirts89 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage in multiple media sources including TIME, MMfA, and the Boston Globe. BLP1E has been overcome due to lasting coverage of his Charlotsville rally participation, youtube channel, and death threats at his college. He's a white supremacist, but we're WP:NOTCENSORED. First two delete !votes are making political judgements, not policy based arguments. Other delete !voters argue over content (eg. "notability not explained in article", "reads as promotional", etc). Tsumikiria's argument that "alt right clowns don't deserve a place here" is not a policy based argument. We cover all notable topics, not just the ones we like. The article needs to be improved; not deleted.--v/r - TP 03:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I'm not so sure about "clearly"; the three sources you mention all covered Fuentes within the span of one week, so that's not sustained coverage. WP:SUSTAINED clearly states that if "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event... we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." There's no lasting coverage of him after that, only brief mentions. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
note: this is this IP address's only edit, and it copy-pastes the first sentence of the first Keep vote. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: One of those new sources is a local newspaper, and the other is an editorial written about the author's personal experience with Fuentes during his college days. Not what I would call passing WP:GNG level if that's all there is. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment:' None of them are top tier RS, but there's certainly more: here, and here. Admittedly, those are not independent of the subject, but this is. Close call but I think he's past GNG.ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"None of them are top tier RS" - that's precisely the problem with this article. (Your 3rd link literally has 1 sentence on Fuentes in the entire article). The only RS that feature him are from one week in history, and there's only 3 of those (one of those 3 is actually a blog on MMfA, so not even that great). The rest of the mentions are all from very fringe sources. That's why he doesn't meet GnG. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ewen Douglas and StraussInTheHouse. Fails to meet the requirements for significant and sustained coverage of this particular individual. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, asserts notability with reliable sources. Amisom (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    comment The reliable sources only cover him for one week, years ago, so no, there's no "notability with reliable sources" Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ewen Douglas: But I fairly obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. My understanding of WP:N is that the sources in the article as it stands are a legitimate assertion of notability. You're entitled to think that they're not. I disagree. Deal with it. Amisom (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose one of us agrees with actual Wikipedia guidelines and the other disagrees with them, then. I would wager the person disagreeing would have the more difficult time "dealing with it." Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Consensus? I'm sure you think you're unquestionably right and that everyone else's view is wrong, biased, incorrect, against policy, foolish and idiotic. But Wikipedia tends to work on the basis of discussions, and two editors can disagree without either of them being 'wrong'. Let me also inform you that I, and I suspect most of the other people commenting here, will be able to cope without further hectoring from you. Allow this AfD to run its course. If the consensus goes in your favour, good for you. If it goes against you, tough. Sniping at people who disagree with you will not help your cause. Amisom (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe pointing out basic errors in stating Wikipedia policies qualifies as "sniping"; however, most of the statements you made above assume a great deal of things, both about me and other editors, so I would advise you to take your own advice about hectoring and sniping. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ewen Douglas: I didn't make a "basic error". I expressed my opinion. You might disagree. You might interpret the policy differently. That's fine. Doesn't mean I'm wrong - and I'm far from the only person who seems to have reached my conclusion here.
    If you need help understanding the difference between facts (which are right/ wrong and therefore might be erroneous) and opinions (which are neither right or wrong) then there are some resources here that might help you [65] Amisom (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources which are in passing and/or blog-like. Not sufficient for a BLP at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the depth and quality of coverage. Even discounting the IP, we have a majority but not quite a consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All politics aside, I see a number of reliable sources on this article: Boston Globe, Reuters, NYT, Chicago Tribune, Mic, etc etc. Not sure I want to call Vice a reliable source, but that's here too. Seems to pass the minimum requirements for notability at the very least. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point, Cllgbksr, and perhaps that part should have been left out. I apologize, as I believe this is only my second deletion nomination, so I'm not well-practised at it. For the record, I know there are more white supremacists on Wikipedia who are definitely notable, and I nominated this one solely based on his lack of significant coverage over a long period of time. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the feeling that opposition to this article is largely coming from a place of dislike for the subject rather than Wikipedia guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. That's not the case, at least for me. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No barrier to creating a redirect from the properly-cased title. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pain of An Empty Stomach

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

Book lacks all notability, and is part from a long campaign to promote the author on enwiki. Very few sources even mention this book, and then they are only passing mentions. No good sources about the book itself. Fram (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 14 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) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

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

Article seems to be based on self-promotion by think-tank. Shtove (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find much significant coverage information about the organization from independent sources. There's [67], and it is probably independent, but it still feels promotional. It also seems routine; the source describes itself as a portal to find content on organizations based in the Hague that promote international peace and justice. That doesn't seem like a very selective list. And even that source says Clingendael has only about 60 employees. Everything else online has similar issues. It's all either routine or affiliated, sometimes both. The organization seems competent and is probably a reliable source on international justice issues, but as for itself being notable, it seems WP:TOOSOON. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep I'll admit my bias upfront, I studied at Clingendael with an outside organization in 2013. That being said, this article needs work (especially reliable sources). I would argue that as a IR think-tank with (if I remember correctly) arms-length government connection, it is notable. I'll see what I can do to bolster the current article. Bkissin (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bkissin has greatly improved the article, but I'm not convinced the references establish notability or that they aren't the fruit of self-promotion (no criticism of Bkissin). If not to be deleted, it is a candidate for inclusion on a long list of think-tanks that enjoy the benefit of state-funding. Why don't governments just directly publish their own propaganda? shtove
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Boger

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

Frankly, this may have been a candidate for BLP-PROD but in deference to the very old age of the page I'll run as an AFD. There's no credible evidence of the subject's notability and appears to fail WP:GNG pretty clearly. Zero real cites on the page and Google News turns up zero credible independent sources about the subject (rather than quotes from the subject and mentions in passing). Given the page's age I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing it. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteWeak keep. No significant coverage found this is independent of his companies, although he gets quite a few mentions in the context of those companies. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Changed to weak keep in light of the sources identified below. I'm not totally convinced yet, but am erring on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, what is needed is significant accomplishment and WP:SIGCOV - which need not be a profile. SIGCOV in sentences and paragraphs can suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Sources offered above are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. For example, the WaPo piece is a pitch from Boger:
With advances in technology and mass-produced, high-quality displays now much more affordable because of the proliferation of smart phones, Boger saw new opportunities for Sensics.
"We are exploring new applications in the gaming industry. We partnered with a company called Razer, a global leader in products for gamers, to create virtual reality headsets."
Etc. Just a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't see the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet the GNG. I'm seeing passing mentions and some interviews of him promoting his company's products, but that's what I expect from any company's chief marketing officer.Sandals1 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Sandals1 is an editor with a highly unusual editing record, and a talk page dominated by sockpuppet investigations. I have not looked beyond the talk page, Sandals1's talk page. But it is odd to have 2 editors with such unusual editing records show up at an obscure AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual to be accused of being a sockpuppet twice after only 5 edits, but nothing came of either of those unjustified allegations (both from the same editor).Sandals1 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV. The articles I read either talked about his company and mentioned him in relation to that company or talked to him about his company. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see the significant independent coverage of him that I believe is needed to show he meets WP:GNG. He appears in the press in his role of marketing his company's products, but that's not about him. According to the Haaretz article both of the companies he founded went out of business. The claim that he was a founder of Oblicore (which I found in one article) is not supported by any documentation I can find. In fact, it is contradicted by both Bloomberg and Network World.[70] As marketing chief it's not surprising he's interviewed, but it's in line with his job and not because he's individually notable. The phrase "serial entrepreneur" is present in several articles in both English and Hebrew because I suspect that's part of his pitch (it's an odd phrase for a variety of reporters from different media and countries to all use). Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 4 February 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Israelitism

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

This article, which purports to give a name to a specific current of Palestinian nationalism, is about a specific claim of ethnogenesis for Palestinians, and provides citations to primary source genetic studies and a mixture of primary and secondary sources for linguistic arguments that to varying degrees support the claims of this tendency. However, none of the sources provided actually mention "Palestinian Israelitism", "Palestinian Israelism", or "Native Israelis", nor do they make reference to any specific political movement that is promoting this theory, thus making this article WP:SYNTH at best. I wasn't able to find any mention of these terms in RS online, and an internet search for the Arabic term provided in the lead also returned no results. Thus, while some of this information could be incorporated into Palestinians, Palestinian nationalism or other existing articles that discuss Palestinian identity, I don't see any evidence that there should be a standalone article titled "Palestinian Israelitism". signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note: as it turns out, the section on genetic studies appears to be a copyright violation of a comment on this blog. I'm unaware of any actual policy on what to do in this situation, but in order to make it easier to evaluate the article, and to avoid accusations of sabotaging the article to make a stronger deletion case, I am going to avoid acting on this until after the AfD runs its course. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The delete !voters were ignoring WP:GNG as a guideline, making keep arguments stronger. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Watts

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

Subject not sufficiently notable as does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG Lakers321 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  << FR 10:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL but WP:GNG supersedes subject-specific notability guidelines and the article cites enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the latter. However, I would be inclined to open a requested move to change from his nickname as it appears that the majority of sources refer to him by his first name, but that's an aside. SITH (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:20, 14 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) 10:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Davies

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

Let’s start with the obvious. The article does not cite any sources. I tried looking for any reliable sources but I’ve turned up nothing, which I chalk up to her being a child actress at the very beginning of her career. I looked at the first AfD for this page before coming here and they decided to keep because she meets NACTOR. So now we’re in a situation where we have to decide if career specific notability guidelines (NACTOR) is greater than the need for reliable citations for verification (GNG). As far as I’m concerned, I see this page as a much too soon, regardless. Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this is about the broader notability guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) is thataway. Pretty much no one accepts that a single AfD is some binding notability guideline update. (Neither does the nominator, obviously, since they are rejecting a previous AfD.) The subject meets WP:NACTOR#1 with verifiable "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." There are sources available for verification and expansion, including the ones that Lourdes pointed out in the last AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one added them and the article stands empty of any references. Looking at the history of the article, the only references put since the first AfD was IMDb (unreliable therefore removed), FamousBirthdays (unreliable therefore removed), her Instagram account (unreliable therefore removed), and MovieWeb (unreliable therefore removed). If the sources Lourdes suggested had been added, Davies it still wouldn’t expand the article in any way. All that book offered was a trivia tidbit for for IMDb. The lead has a POV issue and is nothing more than a sentence rendition of what’s in the filmography table. Where is her career section? Trillfendi (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why do we have to decide "if career specific notability guidelines (NACTOR) is greater than the need for reliable citations for verification (GNG)"? (Though that is not all of what WP:GNG actually says - it says WP:SIGCOV, which is different to WP:V.) We don't need to decide that because WP:NACTOR specifically does not include any mention of coverage, unlike other career specific guidelines (WP:AUTHOR #3, for example). As for "at the beginning of her career", she's been acting for 6 years, and has just had yet another major role! Please stop wasting our time with nominations of people who clearly meet career specific guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Acting for 6 years, 12 years old. Do the math on that. As for “wasting your time”, one could surmise that you’re wasting your time even being here in the first place. What it comes down to is this article has absolutely no references in it at all whether it relates toverification of roles stated here, notability, or anything. It cannot stay that way for as long as it has; and previous references put there were all unreliable. So I proposed deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JDDJS: I don’t have an issue with it, I’m just perplexed as to how the article was initially kept with NO references whatsoever, whether to verify roles or identify notability or anything at all. That’s the issue. (Having roles doesn’t automatically meet NACTOR). Trillfendi (talk) 16:52, 14 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 Weak Keep. Editors did establish article's notability within their field, but there should be no prejudice to a second nomination a year from now. (non-admin closure) ―MJL -Talk-☖ 22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audacious Inquiry

Audacious Inquiry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audacious_Inquiry&oldid=878321113

Does not meet WP:NORG, all coverage appears to either be routine business press (hirings and firings, fundraising, etc.), interviews with executives, or press releases from the company (albeit published in many different publications). signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - Among press, the Modern Healthcare article mentions that the subject company built the PULSE software which is also the subject of the story in Wired. Both are national and significant publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.56.242 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the sources just added to the article, I stand by my earlier assessment. All coverage in RS is mere-mentions either attesting briefly to the company's involvement in an event or citing the company's spokespersons' opinions on a topic. I have yet to see any article which addresses the subject in detail. signed, Rosguill talk 23:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thank you for the feedback. Added Inc. Magazine profile on the subject as a reference, which speaks to the subject as part of the Inc. "hall of fame." The other RS examples illustrate the work of the company and the significance of that work. (e.g. Pew Research Center report, Florida government source) The David Raths profile (reference 3) is also in depth on the subject. Thank you for considering. signed, Flaco c (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding citation #3, Healthcare Informatics doesn't list any editorial information and looks to me like a PR site, which would mean that it is not a reliable source. Additionally, inclusion in the Inc. hall of fame does not contribute toward notability per the section "Examples of trivial coverage" in WP:NORG Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement [include]...inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. Regarding minimal coverage in RS (Pew, etc.), please see WP:ORGCRITE for guidelines as to when an article contributes toward notability for a company. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Shouldn't the Florida state government agency announcement (pdf) about the subject, the subject's service, and the service users qualify as a RS? (Independent, secondary, significant, reliable). Healthcare informatics editorial board is found here: https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/page/editorial-board It is a reputable publication in healthcare IT - with substantial readership... (fwiw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdbrandt (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added one additional source, a profile of the subject by technically media, a regional news outlet. I believe that the Baltimore Sun article, technically article, and healthcare informatics profile each provide substantial coverage of the subject and would seemingly qualify as verifiable, independent, reliable, secondary sources. In sum, the multiple threshold for WP:NORG should be met, with these additions. Thank you for the feedback and consideration. signed, Flaco c (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotionalarticle, with referneces based on PR, and local news stories. No indication of general importance, at least at present. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, thank you for the opportunity to learn more about WP's policies on article deletion and notability. I've been educating myself on the process, but am still a newbie at this aspect of WP's process. Second, let me put out there some personal biases: I've worked with Audacious Inquiry and oversaw some of their work on health information exchange in Maryland. I know the leadership team. I've not worked for them directly and have no personal skin in the question of deleting this article. I have a good sense of why this article is being considered for deletion as there are questions about the significance of the organization and its contributions to date. More importantly, it is difficult to determine the substance and reliability of the references cited. As an informatics professional focused on health information exchange, when I speak professionally I often cite Ai's Encounter Notification Service as one of the most substantial technical advances in our field in terms of its practical impact on patient outcomes. But we are challenged with a disconnect between what appears in scholarly articles, which may cite the value of encounter notifications, and the business articles which mention the companies developing the solutions but don't have the same perceived reliability. Informatics is an emerging field and, like other esoteric domains, it is hard to distinguish reliable sources from PR-driven sources. Healthcare Informatics is the closest journalistic outlet we have to an industry-focused publication with an independent staff and publication board. Would it be helpful to cite scholarly publications that discuss encounter notifications in regions where Ai's technology and services are used even if Ai isn't specifically mentioned? Rmartinmd (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is an established, going concern and recognized as such by numerous, non-promotional secondary sources, including Inc, Wired and a local daily newspaper. Any primary, owned channels cited are ancillary to meeting the larger NORG notability criteria. BMuys ----
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added Bloomberg profile as a source / reference. Added a 2013 "business insider" article as an ancillary source. (subject is one of nine companies profiled.) Thanks for continued feedback. Flaco c (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability established — There's sufficient material to support notability, though a substantial proportion of the sources are incidental mentions. Also, there has been the propensity for an author to not use the title of a cited piece but rather use some interpretation of how the source supports the article as the title. This is not the right way to source information, and I've revised some if not most of these; there are still citations I've not revised remaining which need review and revision. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ceyockey, can you perhaps link here to two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? I have looked at the various sources in the article and I'm not convinced but perhaps I'm missing something. Thank you. HighKing++ 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Audacious Inquiry is obviously a notable company in their field. Editor-1 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 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 Barış Manço. In the unlikely event that anything here is worth merging to Barış Manço, content is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Fairground

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

Does not meet WP:N criteria; could not find any coverage on the song specifically with the exception of one blog post in Turkish. Furthermore, lacks indication of any broader importance or significance. Noahhoward (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is a very brief one, and could be merged with the article on Baris Manco without too much difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Bedoya Martínez

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Google searches generally bring up hits related to a Peruvian journalist for the newspaper El Comercio, and a Colombian former Liberal Party candidate for Congress, neither of whom are this subject. No reliable independent sources have been found for this author – the article is mostly OR and reads like it has been sourced from a publicity press release (indeed, much of the article text appears to have been taken from a translation of Mr. Bedoya's Amazon biography [75]). Of the current three references in the article, the first is a blog, and the third simply mentions Mr. Bedoya within a long list of other authors; the second reference may be reliable, but I have not heard of the website before, and it doesn't appear to have a page for checking its credentials and editorial oversight. Richard3120 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:COI. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. McClure

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

Non-notability Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude and longitude of cities, A-H

Latitude and longitude of cities, A-H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also

Indiscriminate list. All city articles already have coordinates and putting a random selection of them in alphabetical order is pointless. Even combined I see no reason to have this relic of a page. Reywas92Talk 01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are actually useful though, unlike the nominated articles here. A sortable list would still be more convenient than looking up the parallels one by one. That said there is much room for improvement, for example entries such as Eureka should be either removed or marked differently from real cities. Also the two articles can be merged, possibly with List of cities by elevation as well. Esiymbro (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But are they really? Who needs an indiscriminate list of cities like that? I'm not sure what this informs the reader of. Yeah, the parallels aren't good for looking at lots of places at, but I'm not sure what purpose these serve. Anyway I don't have to AFD them here but I'll do a merge. Reywas92Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:01, 14 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. Sandstein 10:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Justice

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all but one of the references are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles Association of Court Reporters, TV Justice and Stop Censorship About War Crimes ‎ . Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This Radio Justice project ended in 2017 according to BIRN web pages. I would have said merge and redirect to Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, but that is a mere redirect to another of the network's projects, an online publication called Balkan Insight, also heavy on the promotional intent, that article also largely the product of a couple of single purpose accounts in 2008. As to Radio Justice, no sign of notability, and no future. --Lockley (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Court Reporters

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all the references except one are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles TV Justice, Stop Censorship About War Crimes and Radio Justice . Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 14 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 Balkan Insight. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TV Justice

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all the references except one are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles Association of Court Reporters, Stop Censorship About War Crimes and Radio Justice . Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brearey

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

Despite the article existing since 2005, it is unsourced and fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not find any reliable coverage for WP:GNG so that's why I have nominated the page. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some. But other old, unsourced articles simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dannyno: Thank you for going through the effort to find citations, but both of which you added to the article seem to be obituarys or opinion pieces plus are both offline, so they are not the best for WP:RS. If in-depth, third-party, online citations can be found I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that offline sources are not in fact considered problematic by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources Dannyno (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dannyno: That is not the main issue, although the fact that the majority of references are offline is a bit difficult to cross-check. The bigger problem is where the sources are coming from. At the time of this edit, the last 4 sources all seem to be obituarys based on their title and publication dates. Sources 1 and 3 appear to be dictionaries, which per WP:DICTIONARIES should be cited with care. More so 3 of the sources come from newspapers that the subject worked for. All of these sources can be classified as WP:PRIMARY, which aren't bad as a whole and are actually good for backing up uncontroversial and basic facts, but are bad on their own at establishing notability. This leaves the Guardian article as the only second-party reference, in which only an opinion piece of Brearey is mentioned. Once again thank you for putting in the effort in gathering these references, but I am still not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This now has sources, and enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I would not consider sources 1 and 3 to be dictionaries, despite the name of source 3 - dictionaries do not generally include biographical information about people, which this does (its description on Google Books includes "The names of many people whose lives or work reflect freethought principles form a major portion of the entries.). Both are more like encyclopaedias, which are allowed as sources, per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." So there are 3 main WP:RS. Apart from that, he was the editor for 5 years of a magazine which had existed for 112 years by the time he took over the editorship. For an academic journal, that would be a pass of WP:NACADEMIC #8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the long discussion, there's only 1 "keep" !vote here (plus one "merge"). I find the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. If somebody wishes to merge this to the industrial park article, drop me a note and I will userfy this list. Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of industrial parks by size

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

This compiled list is original research. There are references for the size of individual parks but nothing to denote their global ranking, so this could just be a list of random parks in size order. I can find no single source specifying the top industrial parks in the world by size, not to mention there is no accepted definition of what constitutes an industrial park compared to say, certain types of special economic zone. If such a source exists this would likely need to be WP:TNTed in any case, and WP:CLEANUP now would see this reduced to an empty list for lack of sourcing. Best to delete it with no prejudice to recreation if proper sourcing for rank can be found. Pontificalibus 08:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Not all industrial parks are notable either. Ajf773 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although perhaps should be moved/renamed to simply List of industrial parks, and edited in table form so can be sorted alphabetically or by size. We have Category:Industrial parks with about 20 members, i.e. industrial parks having Wikipedia articles. See wp:CLNT for the general reasoning why list-articles, categories, and navigation templates are complementary. A list-article can have pics and sources and comparative descriptive info, while categories cannot, is one advantage. --Doncram (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination calls for use of essay wp:TNT to justify deletion then recreation of the list-article, which IMO is fundamentally against Wikipedia basic principles. Please see counter-essay wp:TNTTNT. Note that arguing TNT is admitting that the topic is notable, and IMO means this AFD should perhaps be closed SPEEDY KEEP. --Doncram (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Industrial park. Per Doncram having a list of such parks may be a valid topic, but it's OR to have rankings here. I don't see a need for a separate article when the main is so short, it could certainly have a section "The following industrial parks are larger than 1,000 acres" or something. Reywas92Talk 01:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete per the OR concerns. The suggestion to move to List of industrial parks is an interesting one, but difficult because of inclusion criteria. As stated above, there's not a clear distinction between industrial parks and special economic zones. Perhaps the category should also be deleted for that reason. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 04:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just moved it to List of industrial parks. It is fine there. I find this AFD discussion silly, do let's just accept it was/is reasonable to move it, and it has been moved, and please go on with your lives. If you want to complain about the current state of the list-article please do so by commenting at its Talk page. This AFD should be closed "Move" to ratify the move or "Keep" to say yes the content has been kept. Enough already. This is ready to be closed. --Doncram (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of title. This 35-entry list has the potential scope for thousands if not tens of thousands of industrial parks across the world that are as large or greater than current entry #35's 180 acres. Until there are reliable sources that inventories industrial parks around the world or at least by country to inform this list, it is going to remain a list that horn toots the largest industrial parks near a select few interested editors that they know about. Hwy43 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Wikipedia does allow and welcome lots of lists like this, such as List of covered bridges and List of fire stations and so on, where the world has lots of whatever type of thing. And these lists work fine. We are just going to list the notable ones, i.e. all the ones that are "Wikipedia-notable" and have a separate article, or just the ones that are "list-item notable", i.e. meeting some standard which can be defined by the editors of the article, to be determined by discussion at its Talk page, most likely including requirement for reliable sourcing on each one. Refining that is a matter for Talk page discussion. By wp:CLNT we certainly allow a list-article to complement the category of these things. --Doncram (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 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 deleted by RHaworth - the article was deleted by RHaworth (log) per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6-inch gun M1917

6-inch gun M1917 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [76])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I messed up creating this article. The source I used misidentified the gun as being built in the USA and based on the BL 6-inch Mk.VIII naval gun when it's actually a variant of the BL 6-inch Mk.XIX gun. I should have suspected as much when I couldn't find any other references to it. A redirect to the Brazilian section and expansion of that section in the Mk.XIX article would be more appropriate. Snowdawg (talk 22:02, 31 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain, Peter (1975). Heavy artillery. Gander, Terry,. New York: Arco. p. 43. ISBN 0668038985. OCLC 2143869. Snowdawg (talk 23:56, 31 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

It may interest you that Glen Williford's 2016 book on US mobile artillery has a decent section on this gun, but does leave the reader guessing as to where it was made. This is a great source for anything US-made or used 1875–1953. RobDuch (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Williford, Glen (2016). American Breechloading Mobile Artillery, 1875-1953. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978 0 7643 5049 8.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, just do it yourself. Snowdawg. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Snowdawg as you created the article you can request its speedy deletion per G7 and then recreate it as a redirect. Or just blank the page and redirect it. SITH (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially keep If they had a sufficiently different service history, then I'd have no objection to keep two separate articles. Otherwise merge and redirect would be fine – it ought to stay as a distinct section in the target article though, clearly they were distinct enough for that.
Mostly though, I don't think anyone would object to whatever you want to do with it (even closing this, making the changes yourself and deleting (if absolutely necessary) with {{db-user}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Industries et Agro-Ressources

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

References fail the criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability, just run-of-the-mill company notices. HighKing++ 13:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm reluctant to delete anarticle abouta Frenchinstitution that theFrench WP considers notable enough to cover, but, just as the nom says, it does not meet our standards. There's nothing addition in the rench version tohelp. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Out (Dirtyphonics and Bassnectar song)

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

Not enough reliable coverage for a song that did not chart nor received any sales certification. Fails WP:NSONG. 99.203.31.213 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jones

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

Does not meet notability guideline for biographies, and claim to fame is being on Survivor, which does not indicate a need for a separate article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Adding the following article for the same reasons.[reply]

Jessica Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it does seem like she has done other things, and was the founder of a charity and had other TV appearances. However there is too much on her presence on Survivor suggesting that that is the key to her notability. Playlet (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"regional" or "local" coverage is not a factor in WP:BASIC. WP:AUD is for organisations (and is a garbage guideline), WP:GEOSCOPE is for events, there is no corresponding requirement for BLP. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just truly do not see notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are y'all just going to keep "relisting" until you get enough delete votes? That doesn't seem like an honest process. Once again, it's a too-long article that should be trimmed considerably but not deleted. XF641D9K (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: XF641D9K (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anybody wants to merge some of this content elsewhere, I can userfy these articles upon request. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of positive integers and factors

List of positive integers and factors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Parallel (essentially, a reformatted fork) to other number articles.
  • Requires citations.
  • "Prime Factors" column is redundant to the misnamed "Divisor Pairs" (actually, factorization).
    Actually, both are redundant to a column "Prime factorization", which isn't there, but could be populated by a LUA module.
  • "Distinction" column is unmaintainable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages split out after the nomination and now included in the nomination:

List of positive integers and factors/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of positive integers and factors/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of positive integers and factors/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of positive integers and factors/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Some distinctions" column was meant to apply to the number, not necessarily to its factors. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep: I am the creator of this list. I would like to make the following points:
    • This list is only ten hours old and is still under construction. I appreciate your prompt attention, but I think we should withhold judgement for a few weeks.
    • Citations are included in the linked articles. This is common for lists.
    • I created this list as a single 10,000 row table to test load times. I can break this list into shorter tables on multiple pages or on a single page. I have yet to decide. I would appreciate your input.
    • This list duplicates some of the information contained in several other articles. However, this list brings together this information in a table with a simple format that is easily read by both novice and sophisticated users.
    • I believe the "Divisor pairs" column heading is appropriate, but I am certainly open to suggestions.
    • I changed the name of the "Distictions" column to "Some distictions" to avoid confusion. This column could contain virtually anything, but I think editors should use their discretion. I appreciate your comments.
    • I believe this list contains valuable information that many users will find useful. I've used my own version of this list for over 20 years.
I really appreciate your consideration. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your concern about maintainability. I certainly don't have any problems. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: I've split this list into five tables on five pages. This should make the list far more manageable. The list is now down to #791 on Special:LongPages. I could split this list into ten pages to reduce the size further.  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Buaidh, can I ask the rational behind creating this page? It's possible that this will help us determine whether it is sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. As to the objections about maintainability, I do not believe that should be an issue. Our understanding of these numbers are not being revised, and it is of finite length. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Separating the long list into several subarticles (and I don't think a subarticle title like List of positive integers and factors/2 conforms to MOS) does not address other issues raised. You say this list "brings together this information"; why didn't you propose a merger of the other similar articles rather than duplicating them? If a reader would be better served with certain information in a single place (which I often support), then combine the information rather than adding redundancy (which I do not). However, I doubt any reader will be coming to Wikipedia in search of the factors of 8648; this goes beyond the realm of being encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 08:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Table of prime factors as an artilce on an existing topic. I think the tables created here are superior, not least because of the narrative additions in the "Some distinctions" column. However its clear that past a certain point we start running out of things to say in that column...--Pontificalibus 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are multiple issues, as noted above:
    1. The article is too long. (This might be resolved by splitting it, but....)
    2. The description column is unmaintainable. (Will anyone notice if a vandal notes something in the line for 4253?) Before that column is populated, a verifiable methodology for determining (and populating) what goes there needs to be determined.
    3. The "Prime factors" column should be "Prime factorization", and should be calculated via the LUA module.
    4. The "Divisor pairs" column should, if included at all, be replaced by "Factors". However, this is one of the fields most frequently vandalized in individual number articles. In addition, this is sufficiently complicated, that if the author made a few mistakes, we'd probably never find them unless someone went to the effort of regenerating the table from time to time.
    5. The split article titles violate WP:MOS. (This could be resolved, but the author probably wouldn't go along with the necessary changes.) The split tables also are improperly indexed.
    6. Has anyone verified the colors for accessibility? Furthermore, the colors can and should be maintained by a modification of the LUA factorization module.
  • Response: I'm happy to address the concerns expressed here and to modify this list as appropriate. The purpose of this AfD entry is to determine whether a list like this should even exist on Wikipedia, not whether it needs to be modified. (Wikipedia has substantial articles on important topics such as Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr., PhD.)
I've split this list into five pages to address length concerns. We can split this list further if there is a consensus. We can certainly change the column headings and indexing if there is a consensus. The "Some distinctions" column is merely to alert the user to other interesting topics for further exploration. I merely added some things I felt were interesting. There are no required or prohibited entries. We can certainly address criteria for inclusion.
Vandalism can be repaired by reversion to previous edits. We can even lock this list if vandalism is a major concern. To maintain this list, I merely download it to an Excel spreadsheet. I converted this list from a personal HTML page I've used for many years. The row colorization is merely an aid to casual examination and does not create accessibility issues.
We can certainly address mergers to avoid duplication. A certain amount of duplication is warranted if it aids the user in pursuit of different topic objectives.
This list is intended as a guide to interested users, and not a monument to number theory. Perhaps we should lighten-up.
Thanks for all your interest.  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address the redundancy issue? We may have Sideshow Bob, but we don't have a seperate article with more interesting and better-formatted content at Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr. Anyone thinking of creating such an article ought to focus their efforts on improving Sideshow Bob. Why should we have an article List of positive integers and factors if the content is already covered in the articles mentioned above?--Pontificalibus 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this list is covered in many different articles. We may need to merge articles. Each of these articles has a different format and different content. Before we start deleting articles, as this AfD entry proposes, we need to contemplate how each of these articles is used and how they may be optimally combined. To merge articles probably means either a loss of information or overly complicating existing articles. I've been involved in a number of these discussions and understand the issues involved. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Beyond 1000 (the greatest number in Table of prime factors), it is not entirely clear where we should draw the line, as such a list could continue ad infinitum with increasingly sparse useful information. Furthermore, many of the numbers listed here are not mentioned at all in 1000 (number), 2000 (number), etc. and do not exist as redirects, which is a strong indication that they are not notable. As such, the distinction column is left blank, or is filled with information which is not clearly related to factors, as the article title would otherwise suggest. Per Arthur Rubin, there is a lot of content in these lists that is redundant, and for the fifth list especially, there really isn't much said that is nontrivial (i.e. that would satisfy WP:1729 or factorizations that one could determine easily) and not already at 8000 (number) or 9000 (number). ComplexRational (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete egregious violation of WP:NOT ("Excessive listings of unexplained statistics"); also a duplicate of Table of prime factors which I'm not sure has any rationale to exist. This probably could have been a speedy delete; Buaidh has over 100000 edits and should know better - the article being new is not an excuse to keep a duplicate article here ("withhold judgement for a few weeks"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I was egregious. I only have 207,493 edits. Mea culpa.  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Table of prime factors was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of prime factors, and Table of divisors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of divisors. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if I inadvertently stepped into a longstanding mathematics dispute. I did not mean to ruffle any feathers. I normally work elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I thought this table might be of interest. Apparently, I was wrong. Thanks all the same. The elderly curmudgeon,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there are questions about the suitability of this specific implementation of the list, and fears that it may duplicate existing content. I share those fears about the later, but I believe in this case the implementation is vastly superior to existing content. As such, I believe the effort should be kept while we determine how we wish to implement this general class of pages, with the intent of having this page become the 'standard'. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should wait and see how all these relevant articles could be improved. This list could be expanded or compacted. The name of this list could be changed to something more appropriate. I'm open to whatever changes a consensus feels are needed. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: I have not altered these tables, but I have fixed the page names, table names, indexing, header, and footer. I would appreciate your comments. I 'm having a problem with the navbox not compressing appropriately. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article specifically with no preference on the other 4. Could always consider only leaving in the notable numbers (like the Fibonaccis, square, etc. – with sidenotes in the table). ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a request to consider allowing time, and perhaps the nominator did consider doing so. An alternative view might be "If you think a new article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, consider nominating for deletion immediately so that editors don't waste time developing something that may ultimately be deleted".--Pontificalibus 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list is finished unless a consensus wishes to add to or remove entries from the "Some distinctions" column. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The List of positive integers and factors page only contains 1 through 2000. The information in the ten tables of the Table of prime factors are contained in this list. I would suggest removing the ten tables and moving the article to Properties of natural numbers. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samip Mallick

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

While this archivist has been interviewed in some media, I do not see any reason for him to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Most likely self-promotion. WP:BLP applies. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Price

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

Non-notable athlete. Played amateur and one year in a low-level professional league, but no achievements that would establish WP:NCOLLATH or a professional guideline. Little, if any, in-depth coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nurali Aliyev

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion on the grounds that it consists almost entirely of promotional content. I spent some time looking at it and trying to assess what needed to be removed, and came to the conclusion that it's unsalvageable. However, rather than speedy, I'm looking for other opinions. Deb (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is definitely written much more like a résumé than like a proper encyclopedia article, and being deputy mayor of a city is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL. So even if he actually had a much more convincing notability claim than this is showing, an article about him would still have to be rewritten from scratch and referenced much better than this. (Plus if he's Kazakh, then why does he have articles on en and ru but not on kk?) Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a deputy mayor. --Enos733 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many problems with this article, which have all been noted above (though I'm not surprised he's not on the Kazakh wikipedia.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_14&oldid=878425757"