Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randykitty (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 26 January 2019 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhash Salunkhe (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 25 January 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Salunkhe

Subhash Salunkhe (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)

Doesn't appear to meet biographical or academic notability guidelines. He was cited in a BBC News article about a child mortality spike, but the coverage was not primarily about him. The other two sources display error messages for me so I cannot analyse them. Opting for AFD over PROD as I have tried searching in Marathi and Hindi but I am in no way an expert in those languages so input community would be appreciated. SITH (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very difficult to believe that someone who has been director general of health services of a state with a population of over 100 million would not be notable. In English I can only find sources that do little more than verify his position, but I don't read Marathi or Hindi. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of coverage. While Director General is an important post in many civil service departments, I am not finding any reports about the person. He is quoted in many places of course, but nothing in detail seems to be available. In general, civil servants do not get the same media limelight as elected representatives in India, as they usually work behind the scenes.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:37, 1 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. After a greatly extended period of time for discussion, and a volume of text that would utterly swamp the article under consideration, the actual opinions expressed in the discussion lean much more towards a consensus to keep than towards deletion, and those opinions are supported by reasonable reliance on coverage as discussed and on the effects of an award being won. bd2412 T 05:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Bagh

AfDs for this article:
Aziz Bagh (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)

It is a building that simply fails WP:GEOFEAT because it requires significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, and WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage from multiple secondary reliable sources that are WP:SIGCOV. Nothing has changed at all for 8 years now since the last AfD (and the award it won is not a notable one). I did find this in my WP:BEFORE (other than passing mentions in books or listings on websites) is a good coverage of Aziz Bagh on https://telanganatoday.com/a-turn-of-century-palatial-mansion but nothing else to satisfy WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable building with only 3 sentences. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the nomination, which includes very substantial and fully-adequate-on-its-own citation. Which includes statement that the U.S. government issued a postage stamp about it. There will surely exist other coverage, too. Perhaps the deletion nomination is a statement of frustration that the article has not been developed, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Tag the article or post complaints/suggestions at its Talk page instead. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Doncram First of all, assume WP:AGF before accusing me of being "frustrated" for the article state and proves you ignored to read my nomination from the top to the bottom, sadly. I never said the article should be cleaned up or that the content in it sucks. Also your vote violates WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES since you are not offering them but claim the coverage will surely exist. And I am refering you again to WP:GNG (so that one source is not enough) and WP:GEOFEAT. The building was not proclaimed as national heritage so it is not even that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I don't think I suggested anything negative. It would be perfectly fine IMO for an editor to be frustrated about the lack of development over the long time frame that you mentioned in your nomination.
    However, sure, another source, found quickly by going to the webpage on Aziz Bagh, website which self-proclaims it has been online since 1996, is the published 2009 book about Aziz Bagh, which is itself on sale and summarized at Amazon books.
    The Amazon summary mentions Aziz Bagh was built in 1899, and that it "was honored with the most prestigious award 'INTACH', Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage on July 27, 1997, 110 years after its construction", too. Is that award the one you regard as "not a notable one"? I dunno, but we do have an article about the Indian National Trust, which seems reputable, having some United Nations consultative status and so on. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, refining a Google news search to search on "Aziz Bagh" using quotation marks brings me to New York Times article: "Returning to Hyderabad, Once a Land of Princes and Palaces", New York Times-Jan 23, 2015 with snippet "I visited family friends at the neo-Classical Aziz Bagh, where seven generations have lived since 1899 in a three-acre compound so bucolic ...". I don't have access to the article myself, but that seems like a substantial mention. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were implying I hated the article because it has no development. Trust me, I know about WP:NEXIST. And thank you for going along the discussion with me. Yeah, the award I mentioned was that. Yes, we have an article about the INTACH, but not about the award itself, and to presume it is notable would be wrong since the notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Netnavigate website seems like a primary source so it cannot contribute to WP:GNG and Zaheer Ahmed who wrote the book is the son of the founder Hasanudin Ahmed, also making it WP:PRIMARY since it comes from the person who has connection to the villa itself. And finally the NY Times article. The proper link is this https://web.archive.org/web/20180615113003/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/travel/once-a-land-of-princes-and-palaces.html and sadly it is a passing mention of one sentence which you have said already. The article goes to discuss Famous Ice Cream and Vinita Pittie just a sentence later. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing a link to a complete accessible version of the NYT article. The full article is detailing the nearly-lost old Hyderabad, once grand and spacious, and lists various places including 250-year-old house where Vinita Pittie lives and so on. It comes across to me that no roundup of historic Hyderabad structures would be complete without mentioning the remarkably surviving, spacious, Aziz Bagh. If there were a regional or national historic register comparable to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or the City of Los Angeles' LAHCM, it would be on it. The full sentence about Aziz Bagh is: "I visited family friends at the neo-Classical Aziz Bagh, where seven generations have lived since 1899 in a three-acre compound so bucolic you’d never guess it existed deep within the thrum of the Old City." --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I added links now in the article to a couple photos of historic Aziz Bagh in the MIT library collection, and there is room to improve using the good 2017 article which you had found and has not yet been used in the article. Also, I would not be so quick to dismiss the 2009 book, or to dismiss it so completely. Neither you nor I have seen it, and I want to say that it obviously could be a great gold mine for covering the place. Also I note that both "civil servant" and author Hasanuddin Ahmed and poet Aziz Jang Vila are likely wikipedia-notable persons. --Doncram (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also another source is available from the first AFD about this topic, which closed Keep. From that: "Keep - as so often with non-US/Canada/UK/Australia subjects it's not too hard to find suitable references if you actually look - eg at Know AP (Know Andhra Pradesh) Aziz Bagh is described as one of Hyderabad's Architectural Splendours. http://www.knowap.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1039&Itemid=69 Opbeith (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)". This should have been consulted. I also expect there is more extensive off-line content about events and persons there, from the heyday which might have been in the 1940s or thereabouts. But it is notable for surviving intact and in well-preserved state.[reply]
That source covers a number of significant Andhra Pradesh places which received the INTACH award in various years, and it appears that it is awarded to just one place each year in either Hyderabad which is huge or in Andra Pradesh which is even huger. That suggests the INTACH award is quite important, contrary to skepticism or lack of knowledge about it in the nomination. --Doncram (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram I saw that already, and the problem is...that the article was written by the "administrator" with no names, so I am not sure could this be a reliable source here. Could imply it is a blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. While this is good amount on info, WP:GNG requires RELIABLE sources. I cannot judge reliability here. Also for the comment upwards, WP:GNG dismisses that book because it requires secondary sources (published by someone reliable and not affiliated with the subject). Primary sources can be used in the article, but does not show the notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you note I cannot judge reliability here about the book. I think the book should be obtained by someone. It may be a very good work, with plenty of citations itself, and with photographs that indisputably establish various facts, and so on. I don't have it either. Does any reader of this AFD have access via inter-library loan or whatever to the book, in order to use it to develop the article. Also it is not terribly expensive, $40 on Amazon i think it was. However, based on what's been uncovered here, and based on my experience with historic sites elsewhere (which one can like or not), I think this is pretty obviously a keep based on resources known (and consulted or not) plus likelihood of offline resources existing (which I think is pretty high) plus known fact of an award from a National Trust agency (though details of the award are not completely known). I will likely not comment a lot more. thanks, --Doncram (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram, the book that you describe above is published by CreateSpace; a self-publishing-medium with no minimal peer-review. The author seems to be entirely non-notable too and has no relevant academic expertise. Add WP:PRIMARY on top of that.
    And, the book fails RS by a mile or so. And, we don't need to see it to dismiss it. Also, creating a website in 1996 is not (by any means) highly unusual and I have no clue about how that contributes to notability of the subject.
    AFAIR, INTACH gives 3 annual awards; but I disagree about any of them being even a moderately good indicator of notability. Need to look on this locus; though.
    FWIW, I take no opinion on the merits of this AfD and most-importantly, will need to run a vernacular-source-search, over 'morrow. ∯WBGconverse 19:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for commenting and for your plan to look into it further, though I am less skeptical than you are given the same information so far. Again a book full of photos and perhaps diaries or other primary records or whatever can obviously be a reliable source used in developing the article. You can/do argue that because the source is non-independent of the subject, it can't go towards notability. However I think that depends more on the specifics of the source, and it needs to be seen, IMO. And we already have other indications of importance. And for a place this old there is likely offline coverage pre-internet, too, IMO.
    Suppose INTACH annually recognizes three historic sites. It's my understanding that INTACH covers Andra Pradesh, which had population of about 85 million then! (In 2014 Telangana was split out from AP, so AP's population is reduced to 49 million). For the United States, population 327 million, the U.S. (and Wikipedia) recognizes several thousand new designations of historic sites each year. So this would seem comparable to a U.S. National Historic Landmark, say, not merely a listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
    FYI, I understand this is the mansion/estate of the tax collector of Hyderabad State, the princely state, i.e. it was not the palace of Nizam of Hyderabad himself but rather of the top / most important civil servant. --Doncram (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this archived copy of INTACH source (which is in the article) shows Aziz Bagh was one of five INTACH awards that year, in 1997. And it maybe implies the region covered is Hyderabad, a city larger than City of Los Angeles, which recognizes I think dozens of new Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments each year, overlapping or in addition to the historic sites recognized by the U.S. within the city each year. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India. Hyderabad has about 150 designated heritage buildings, designated during 1996 to 2005, including the palace of the Nizam of Hyderabad (designated in 1996) and Aziz Bagh (designated in 1997). The list-article needs development, and I am currently fixing it up some, and there is some confusion (including that Aziz Bagh is clearly listed in 1997 but does not appear--or at least not under the same name--in a HUDA list in 2006 which seems like it should be the summary of all the separate yearly lists), but IMO every one of these heritage sites is pretty clearly Wikipedia notable. I may try to make a table and merge two overlapping sections in the list-article. These are places like the historic high court building of Andra Pradesh, etc., appearing to me to be equivalent to U.S. National Historic Landmarks. --Doncram (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram, reliability depends on the context of usage. We cannot brand a source into black-and-white and that is always implied to an extent; whenever we use the binary-classification.
    Suppose, I write a book about myself (and my family lineage) and publish a few copies through my next-door press;
    Is that reliable for supporting a claim that I was born in (say), 1976.
    Yeah; without attribution.
    Is that reliable for supporting the claim that my forefathers were the zamindars of the region?
    Maybe; but with attribution.
    Is that reliable for supporting the claim that my palatial abode has been among the finest examples of Indo-Saracenic architecture in Eastern India?
    Nope; plainly put. And, nothing needs to be seen.
    Is that a reliable source for proving the notability of my house/me/my lineage in absence of other sources?
    Never ever. And, nothing needs to be seen.
    We can use that as a source for relatively mundane claims iff the notability has been already established in the first place and by other sources.
    The INTACH Heritage Award (AP) is hardly a notable award to propel something to default notability. Any building of any size and more than 50 years of age can self-nominate for the award and the award targets the best conservation efforts.
    You have a weird sense of wiki-notability and having been subjected to sanctions in the past; you need to read WP:NOPAGE.
    I don't spot anything over regional dailies; post 2000 or so. ∯WBGconverse 15:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, User:Winged Blades of Godric, I don't particularly care, but IMO your comment verged over into domain of being a personal attack. You are invoking some past shite having nothing to do with this AFD as far as I can tell. And I did not create this Aziz Bagh article, I am instead contributing productively/positively to a discussion about an article created by someone else. But about articles I have created, I am batting approximately .999, seriously. I.e., out of tens of thousands of articles that I have created, there have been just a few random ones where I was mistaken about notability (perhaps for good reason) and where the article was deleted (and I probably agreed to it or proposed its deletion myself). --Doncram (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately. I generally prefer to preserve articles about heritage places. This is an unfortunate example of a building which has not been recognised by the government. I don't consider INTACH recognition to be notable as their recognition process is not selective and happens through local chapters. (Something like ASI list would be an example of what is truly notable). Other than government recognition, the biggest problem is the lack of coverage. I tried Hindi searches but results I am getting are not about the same building. The book about the building is self published which doesn't add much.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:DreamLinker, it turns out it has been so recognized, see below. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doncram: No, it is not a state protected building/site. Place of historical importance in a state are usually protected by the state government and the list for Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) is here list of state protected monuments in Andhra Pradesh (now Telengana) - Aziz Bagh is not part of this list. HUDA is an urban planning agency for Hyderabad. The adding of a structure to a "heritage list" by a local municipal agency is largely insignificant. The bigger problem is the lack of coverage about the building.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This mansion seems pretty clearly encyclopedic. On top of the citations currently in the article, It is discussed in depth on page 204 in, "A Guide to Architecture in Hyderabad, Deccan, India"[1], a manuscript written by MIT Research Librarian Omar Khalidi in 2009, who also cites, Hasanuddin Ahmad, Mahfil, (Hyderabad: Wila Academy, 1982), p. 153 (Hasanuddin Ahmad being the former owner). It was also declared a heritage building by the Hyderabad Municipal Administration and Urban Development in 2013.[2] Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to calling this a no-consensus... but let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks User:Smmurphy for your info; i added the 2013 official designation of Aziz Bagh as a heritage structure to the article. Some more from the MIT librarian-authored study should be added too. Note, so this is one of only a few officially designated heritage structures in Hyderabad city or metropolitan region, a huge area. I have edited a bit at Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, please see, and note there is more development to do there. So Aziz Bagh was in a sort of top 10 list, i.e. within the first two batches of 5 places designated by the INTACH, Hyderabad awards, when that was making a private start in effect making nominations for wider recognition. Aziz Bagh is now (2013) officially one of the 166 heritage buildings designated by the government. The heritage structures list-article needs to be better integrated in covering the INTACH chapter's nominations and the finally designated places, and in linking to articles. I created at least one new stub article, for St. John's Church, Secunderabad, and found my way to make more than a few links, e.g. Makkah Masjid, Hyderabad. Based on the ones I can see, it appears that Aziz Bagh is among great company, and I presume that all 166 will be accepted as Wikipedia-notable. It would be nice to have some help from editors in Hyderabad, with access to more sources to develop these more quickly, but this is a start. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just posted notices about this AFD at an inactive WikiProject Hyderabad and also at the India noticeboard. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think "officially designated heritage structure" counts for much, especially when the designation is by a local authority, and especially when the Indian land/property system is so corrupt. There is no standard for designation in India of which I am aware and it's bad enough that we seem to think US National Listings & UK Listed buildings are inherently notable without adding what will be hundreds of thousands of minor roadside Hindu temples etc if we pursue this line. We have too many stubs of this type, including of US stuff, without encouraging it further. If anything, we should be deleting WP:NHLE and WP:NRHP stub articles that rely almost entirely on their listing details, not adding more of the same from elsewhere. And, yes I am aware that this is one of 15 designated by the body in question at that particular time, not one of thousands. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Thank you for your understanding about India. Actually we don't have anything as "officially designated heritage structure". What we have is ASI list of national and state protected monuments (which would perhaps be the equivalent of National Registrar of Historic Buildings in US). Aziz Bagh is among neither of them, but rather in a list of heritage structures identified by a local municipal body. That counts for far less. That, coupled with the fact that there is hardly any coverage, is what makes me feel that this is not a particularly important building. There are many such 100+ year old havelis in India and I don't think every one of them would be notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it is perfectly relevant to this discussion, but I would disagree that very many stub NHLE/NRHP articles are about subjects which are not encyclopedic. Similarly, I would disagree that there shouldn't be articles on hundreds of residential buildings in India (I would guess well over a thousand such structures are encyclopedic). Khalidi's manuscript includes about 100 "residential structures" in Hyderabad; even if an article were created on each of these, that would result in a relatively small number of articles given the age, size, and cultural importance of Hyderabad (Category:Houses in Paris contains a similar number of residential structures in that much smaller and younger city). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with articles on historic houses, but there should be some detailed independent coverage (otherwise I prefer merging them to a list). I don't think however that every house older than 100 years would be notable. About Aziz Bagh, Khalidi's manuscript is not a great source, as it relies on primary sources without critical analysis/verification. I do agree about the Western bias (There are many articles about historic places in London), but I think in this case the building itself is not particularly notable or has not been properly researched. On a historical note, I thought Paris (established ~ 1200s) is actually older than Hyderabad (established during the later Mughal period ~ 1550s)?--DreamLinker (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The INTACH award clearly qualifies it per WP:GEOFEAT. There aren't that many given out every year. Also note that only 151 buildings had been granted cultural heritage status by Hyderabad by 2013. In an historic city of nearly 7 million people that isn't very many at all. Lacking an official national built cultural heritage listing system for India, we have to rely on this sort of thing to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Necrothesp:, I think the biggest problem is the lack of quality independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Just to clarify, "Lacking an official national built cultural heritage listing system for India" is not correct. We do have an official list of protected sites by state/national. The INTACH (which is a private NGO) award is given out by each local chapter (and there are many such chapters all over India). While I admire the work of INTACH (in my city, they do heritage walks, book exhibitions etc.), I don't think the local awards are significant, particularly given that the selection criteria is not transparent. About "buildings had been granted cultural heritage status by Hyderabad", this isn't exactly correct either. The HUDA (a local municipal agency) added these to a "heritage list", which is not the same as being granted heritage status by the state government.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. That's why I said "Hyderabad" and not "Telangana"! I maintain that this is enough for notability. I would be very surprised if such a house in the UK, for instance, would not be a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a large bungalow with some embellishments. The only thing it would be listed in would be the local A-Z. Cesdeva (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A Palladian villa? I can only conclude that you don't know a lot about heritage listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a few tiny ionic columns and rather unimpressive facade make that bungalow a palladian villa, then I guess you are right. Cesdeva (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apolgies for the wrong link. For the avoidance of doubt, these are sources I beleive contain signficant coverage i.e. "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material": [5], [6], [7]. The first is an entire article, and the other two both contain paragraphs that address the subject directly and detail why the building is notable. These are both more than a trivial mention, which is exemplified by the NYT source which while mentioning some details, does so in passing in the context of a number of places the author visited that week.--Pontificalibus 11:29, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Sarnoi

AfDs for this article:
Walter Sarnoi (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 boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. PRehse (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamJE Competeting for a world title sure and there is also a list of regional titles were winning can infer notability. But in this case the Latino WBO title is too minor to be on that list (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment).PRehse (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about that title assessment page. Therefore I say Delete per WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 26 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 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Individual event

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Individual event (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)

Doesn't need to create or separate the individual and team events from the main page 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. As you can see this articles only cited the draw on the external link, and doesn't have secondary sources. Stvbastian (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 26 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 Systems of Romance. czar 05:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Motion (Ultravox song)

Slow Motion (Ultravox 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)

Very much lacking in coverage; no charting, one paragraph in a listicle, lots of being-talked-about by (surprise) the originator in an interview. Should be reverted to redirect to Systems of Romance and stay there for the time being. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It did chart, reaching no. 33 in the UK, and got a fair amount of coverage at the time. A merge to the album would also be reasonable given the amount of current content. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 7 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 merge to 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event (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)

Doesn't need to create or separate the individual and team events from the main page 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. As you can see this articles only cited the draw on the external link, and doesn't have secondary sources. Stvbastian (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 2 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer

FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer (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:LISTN as independent reliable sources do not discuss this group. —Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does have independent sources in it. There are multiple sources from news sites and websites that have absolutely nothing to do with FIBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the independent, reliable sources that talk about this grouping? Otherwise, the list is WP:OR about an undefined term—"Decisive Game", an unsourced claim that "Top Scorer" is an actual award, and a group of people collected from individual box scores and not prose about the grouping itself.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly no indication that it is a real "award" as claimed. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely a real award. All through the history of FIBA the top scorer of finals game has been an award. It predates all MVP awards. And even at FIBA's official site, it lists the award for recent tournaments ---> [8] and [9] This is the most standard and original award for all FIBA events, including this one. In fact, FIBA's archive used to list all the top scorers of the tournament, but somehow it seems that page got deleted, and now just the recent tournaments are listed. However, the award always existed, just as it did with all FIBA awards, and predates any MVP awards from FIBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FIBA listing a leader of a stat does not automatically make it an award. Is there a trophy? A certificate? Ceremony? And where is the independent coverage that talks about multiple "winners" at the same time, as WP:LISTN requires?—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an award. For decades FIBA gives the award for top scorer of finals. OK, you won't let it be a separate article because of multiple winners being listed somewhere - it used to be there were some, I guess they got deleted. Anyway, now you should not change that to argue it isn't a real award. Just delete this, and I will merge it back into the article.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't demonstrated that its a real award, rather than just an interesting statistic. It's difficult to make a better decision about this until we know the answer. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:01, 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. bd2412 T 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Boy Center

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's notable enough. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name isn't always translated in the same way, so it's probably better to look for the Spanish name:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the Spanish name when doing my research! The Banner talk 12:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that these references that were recently removed should be restored:
https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/6/centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-capacita-a-los-emprendedores-urbanos
https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/5de6aef6eb0e46a5abcac0e45f15d366-centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-volunteers-manhattan
https://www.osf.org/ecuador Jzsj (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that fundraising pages are reliable, independent sources? The Banner talk 23:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ElTelegrafo is a newspaper article and I have no reason to question its reliability.
And where does Wiki exclude the use of references like The Orphaned Starfish Foundation (www.osf.org/ecuador) once the existence of the work is established? It lends repute and importance to an organization, and it's not coming from the organization itself. Jzsj (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conveniently, you skip to remark about "idealist.org", a fundraiser. How many times are you pointed at WP:RS? The Banner talk 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be more specific: what in WP:RS bans any citation to a foundation that supports the work. Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 2 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Robinson (reporter)

David Robinson (reporter) (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)

Irrelevant guy from tv Billycleaner (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robinson is a reporter on a morning TV program. Article is sourced almost entirely to his bio on the program's webbpage. Since David Robinson is a pretty common name, I searched "david robinson" + "studio 10", which turned up a few, routine mentions [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 26 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, though I would encourage a reasonable waiting period. This was a seriously bloated discussion and I concede that another admin might have called it a Keep. But after reading it through a couple times I am not persuaded there is a consensus here. (Is this a good time to ask for a raise?) Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Hilder

AfDs for this article:
Anthony J. Hilder (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)

Spectacularly long article, but when you glean through sources you find essentially nothing that is independent, reliable, or generally of the quality we would ask for from a WP:FRINGEBLP or WP:CELEBRITY. My guess is that this entire page is functioning as a soapbox. I encourage those who are considering this page to look at the sourcing and realize that none of the sources are serious or reliable. It's one of the worst cases of Wikipedia abuses I've seen in some time. jps (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Ronz, that's not a good suggestion as I edit what I like and what takes my fancy or what I find interesting. Nothing more!! Nobody pays, thanks, buys me lunch or a drink. Only thing is the satisfaction that I get from expanding and adding. The mention you made here - Quote: - - ("This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen, and a BLP. My first thought was a WP:UPE or a similiar WP:COI, but the editor says that is not the case"), can be taken the wrong way and add prejudice to the article. Here's another example of my expansion. Take Deane Waretini who I only had a small amount of knowledge of. Only a one line article as per: Revision as of 03:19, 16 November. Now see what I brought it up to as per: Revision as of 10:27, 22 September 2016. I not only know 20 times more about Waretini than I did when I started, I know more about Waretini and related info than the average person now. And what do I get out of it all? Well, one thing is a I learn more about the subject as I go. And I don't just do it for my satisfaction. I do it for others. I love info! And if I can help share it as do the many other editors then .... That's my payment. Karl Twist (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment directed to ජපස aka jps - Hello ජපස aka jps, I see that you nominated the Anthony J. Hilder article for deletion. You said " It's one of the worst cases of Wikipedia abuses I've seen in some time" - . Well, I can tell you that there is no abuse on my part. Nothing intentional. And I totally reject what your using that term. Unintentionally though it may be, it gives unfair prejudice to this article to which I have been a major contributor. Yes, a "Spectacularly long article" it may seem. There is a lot to the subject and a lot of info on him out there. On Google News there were 3 articles about Hilder. They're not there anymore for some reason. I love expanding articles, adding stuff to them and linking them in with other articles. Believe it or not, I was quite pleased with myself that I expanded the article from what it was when I first came across it to the size that it was just prior to being nominated for deletion. Yes, I realize that there was some stuff here and there that had to be trimmed. Actually I going to put in some more. As you can see, there's more.
    Anyway, take audio-pioneer Lou Dorren. This is what the article looked like before I started work on it 13 August 2015. Then this is what I expanded it to. See here 13 July 2017. Turns out Lou has a place in California music history as well.
    There are so many things under represented in Wikipedia. Articles about the contributions by African Americans in the film and music industry is one. Surf music isn't covered enough either. This subject, namely Anthony J. Hilder is an integral part of surf music development. To deny Hilder's involvement by saying he is not notable is to deny a major and integral part of surf music culture and history as well as California music history.
    And yeah, he's in the conspiracy game and is a 911 Truther. That's info that shouldn't be discarded. Yes, I know articles about 911 Truthers, so-called 9/11 conspiracy theorists is frowned upon by some. So what are we supposed to do?
    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it needs a lot or work (made a start), and many (but not all) of the sources are iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please identify the sources that demonstrate notability? --Ronz (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who Put the Bomp No.14, Fall 1975 - Page 12 may do (but I canot verify) [[11]] (trivial to be sure, but not alone, by a long chalk (i cannot believe that someone with this number of mentions has not got more RS going on about his musical carer)) [[12]] Local but may well be an RS. Surfin' Guitars: Instrumental Surf Bands of the Sixties is used 3 times (unable to verify). There are others I cannot check (for a variety of reason). This is enough to convince me he may be notable, but not for the reason we are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It really goes without saying how ridiculous this is. Just because there’s citation overkill doesn’t mean any of these damn near 300 sources give notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is neither anything notable about this person nor reliable. He just seems to be the run of the mill conspiracy theorist, which can be found by the hundreds on the Internet, with nothing new, original, or influential to say, post, or write. Paul H. (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to ජපස aka jps. Oh gosh, now Surf's Up! At Banzai Pipeline article is nominated for deletion. So, "obscure" as you say. Not so! One of his records was used in Pulp Fiction. He also produced Bombora by The Original Surfaris plus he composed some of their material. Bombora at AllMusic. Some of his artists had their recordings released on Del-Fi. He ended up taking the label to court. See article about him in Billboard, March 26, 1966 - "Anthony Music Sues Del -Fi". His records as well as himself were the subject of the article, "The Tony Hilder Story" by Who Put the Bomp magazine, Fall 1975 (No. 14). According to the article, Hilder's name as publisher, producer etc., appears on countless records, both 45s and albums. There have been other articles about him as well. You've also probably missed what I said about the article by CD Review, Volume 12, page 70 Hilder is referred to as "legendary surf guru". Also, in Steven Otfinoski's The Golden Age of Rock Instrumentals, on page Page 140, it was confirmed by the author that Hilder was prolific. Also music by Hilder was used in the film, The Exiles. See Time, July 18, 2008 article "Exiles on Indie Street" by Richard Corliss for confirmation, as well as the New York Times, July 11, 2008 article, "Despair and Poetry at Margins of Society" by Manohla Dargis for additional confirmation. It's obvious that Hilder is an important part of music history. There's much more. Karl Twist (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION - Shouldn't this have also been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions on the 19th? Karl Twist (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below is a partial discography of the Tony Hilder catalogue. Notable artists among them. As well as being pushed through his publishing company Anthony Music, he produced and in some cases is the credited composer. I have included the singles I know about and only the albums from Impact Records at this stage. There are about 2 dozen LP albums that I can put in. I haven't included LP releases on the Northridge, Arvee, Sutton, Del-Fi, GNP, GSP or Almor labels yet. I haven't included anything from his American United catalogue either. He put out album recordings featuring Myron Fagan, Barry Goldwater, John Carradine, Colonel Curtis B. Dall with their participation.

Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


A partial discography from the Tony Hilder catalogue
Catalogue


There are a lot more recordings out there. 45s and LPS. When I have time, I'll probably put them in. Thanks
Karl Twist (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition - I have now put in the List of misc albums table under the List of misc singles table. There are more albums out there, but I think I have put in enough to give folks the general idea of Hilder's contribution to the surf genre.
    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As I mention on my user page, I've had a variety of direct and indirect associations with the Alaskan broadcasting industry dating back to 1982. In this guise, I had a fleeting association with Hilder during his stint here in Alaska 30-some years ago, when he broadcast for several hours nightly during the early years of KEAG. A lot of the things he said about his days in Hollywood sounded suspect to me; for instance, he once claimed to have discovered Jill St. John. When I searched for him on IMDB many years ago, the only credit that came up was one for scoring a documentary about a long-defunct Native American community in Los Angeles. Anyway, most radio station articles are badly skewed towards "this article exists because there's an FCC license and/or some bottom-feeding media company involved" and say little or nothing about the station's history. Hilder told me at the time that he had a long-term association with a Beverly Hills resident named Jerome Martz and that Martz put radio stations on the air in various places primarily to give Hilder and perhaps others a platform to air conspiracy-related talk shows. From that, I got the impression that Anchorage wasn't the only place where Hilder did this show. The point that's pertinent to this discussion is that Hilder did in fact receive some fairly significant coverage from local media during his time here, and that there should be scraps of evidence available via news archive services. The one-sided discussion during the first AFD is an element of a real scourge upon the encyclopedia, in that it's okay to ignore reliable sources found on news archive services and that we're supposed to be a mindless repetition of whatever Google hands you on a silver platter, ultimately making Wikipedia useful only to the lazy and/or stupid. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From what's being presented, this appears to be a classic case of insufficient notability in Wikipedia's terms. While there's apparently quite of lot of information out there on this guy, what we lack is text which performs analysis & synthesis of his life and work to give us knowledge which we can summarize. So it appears the material available would be great for writing a new secondary work, but Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary work, a "summary of accepted knowledge" drawing its content from predominantly secondary sources. I can't see how what's available is amenable to encyclopedic treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above. No so! To say ... "this appears to be a classic case of insufficient notability" is very incorrect and a term "Classic" gives a very incorrect picture! First of all, Anthony J. Hilder or Tony Hilder as he was known back in the 1960s, has made a significant contribution to the genre. This has been recognized by Who Put the Bomp magazine, in its article about him, "The Tony Hilder Story", Fall 1975 (No. 14) issue. Article says, Hilder's name as publisher, producer etc., appears on countless records, both 45s and albums. It also says ...... "Any attempt at comprehensive survey of the surf music scene without mentioning Tony Hilder would be flagrantly incomplete". He's also referred to in another article in the issue, "Surfin' in the San Joaquin" by the same authors. Steven Otfinoski in his The Golden Age of Rock Instrumentals, on page Page 140, confirms that Hilder was prolific. There've been other articles about him as well. His status is confirmed in CD Review, Volume 12, page 70, where Hilder is referred to as "legendary surf guru". His label and productions have produced acts that are notable and even some minor hits. His production and label provided music for a notable film as well as music in the film Pulp Fiction. There's coverage of him enough in other articles to prove notability. There's enough info in accepted knowledge sources about him, many other than his involvement in the music industry and his prominence in the surf genre. What's suggested by what you say could be applied to half the articles in Wikipedia and they could be zapped out tomorrow. But it's not the case with this. With what we have here on Hilder there's more than adequate info, refs to secure the article. Karl Twist (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing a lot of brief passing mentions but what I'm looking for is some kind of sustained writing about the guy. Could you say a bit more about "The Tony Hilder Story". Who was the author? Isn't Who Put the Bomp a very obscure fanzine which is not what we'd consider WP:RS? In short: show me your very best source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above II and (regarding the status of Who Put the Bomp ) - There's a lot more than brief passing mentions!! OK, about "The Tonly Hilder Story". It was written by John Blair and Bill Smart. You can see it on the Association for Recorded Sound Collections website. Here Bibliography of Discographies Annual Cumulation -- 1975 (Page 42). And who is John Blair? Well, he is a respected authority on surf music. The releases he has contributed liner notes for include, The Challengers - Surfbeat, Sundazed Records SC 6029, 1994, Dick Dale & the Del-Tones - King of The Surf Guitar: The Best of Dick Dale & The Del-Tones, Rhino Records R2 75756, 1989, The Torquays and VA comps such as Lost Legends of Surf Guitar, Vol. IV, Sundazed Records SC 11143, 2005, etc as per. Magazines include Discoveries, Goldmine, Guitar Player and Vintage Guitar etc, as per. No! Who Put the Bomp is not "a very obscure fanzine". See, Who Put the Bomp was a magazine by the late great Greg Shaw of the record label with the same name. Mentioned here in Media and Popular Music by By Peter Mills. The mag was referred to as a "pioneering rock'n roll mag" by Chris Morris in Billboard in its October 30, 1999 issue. Says it here. I know a fair bit about the mag. It's been sourced by Record Collector and mags about 60s music and Punk. Shindig. Having an interest in the Surf music genre, I check things out. Lenny Kaye a Rolling Stone contributor worked for the mag. It also launched the careers of music journalists Lester Bangs and Griel Marcus. See here. Anyway, back to Who Put the Bomp, the magazine is held in high esteem and (as Billboard puts it), a "pioneering magazine. It's outlaw status is a matter of fact. Simon Sheikh of e-flux confirms this. In Journal #63 - March 2015 Circulation and Withdrawal, Part II: Withdrawal. The mag is a valued source for 60s surf music, neo-surf, punk. etc. A respected, reliable source.
    Oh, and like John Blair of Who Put the Bomp doing liner notes, Hilder now out of the music game for some years did in the 1990s for punk and weird & wonderful groups on the Hillsdale label such as The Trashwomen, Jackie And The Cedrics, Boss Martians , The King Normals, and The Tiki Men etc. Karl Twist (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above III, why are you spacing things out like you are? Why don't you put your replies in the normal flow configuration? Karl Twist (talk)
  • Reply to the above IV, Yes I have access to it. Unsure of the publisher and that doesn't matter. The article starts on page 12 and continues on page 13. It talks about Hilder's time at Kent and Modern Records etc. Other labels he did. Producing bands etc. Stuff about his wife providing vocalizations on "Church Key" and his move to the right wing and also connection with Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and to his selling products in the 1970s etc. That's why it's called "The Tony Hilder Story". It's an article and a discography. ...... The magazine is respected and has been sourced by major rock pubs. According to The Guardian, the magazine expanded in the 1970s and morphed into the. record label. According to music magazine, Ugly Things, Who Put the Bomp was a "seminal rock fanzine".
    So, what do we have here? Well, we have .... a "pioneering rock'n roll mag" (according to Billboard, which is also a seminal rock ranzine (according to Ugly Things), which was run by Greg Shaw who according to The Guardian) was assistant head of creative services for United Artists and edited Phonograph Record, doing an article about a man who, (according to CD Review) is a "legendary Surf Guru" etc, etc. And the referred to as pioneering seminal magazine says ..... "Any attempt at comprehensive survey of the surf music scene without mentioning Tony Hilder would be flagrantly incomplete".
    BTW: You still have to fix the other spacing error for your entry at 10:17, 25 January 2019. Karl Twist (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pioneering" rings alarm bells. What we want is settled knowledge. This source doesn't sound very promising. The publisher does matter as if it's self-published (as most fanzines ares) it's not usable here per WP:BLPSPS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. Scrips and scraps of information in various sources do not sufficient notability make. There would seem to be enough primary material "out there" for somebody to write a reasonable secondary piece on this guy, but until that exists (or is found) Hilder is not a suitable subject for encyclopedic treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC); Amended to keep in light of sourced unearthed below. 13:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above - Great choice of words by the way, "Scrips and scraps of information". Ha! You've ignored the obvious facts about Hilder's contribution to surf music that has been documented. The coverage in Who Put the Bomp and other books relateing to the Surf Genre. He's notable in that he he's been covered in publications about the surf genre. He has produced , composed more than a couple of classic songs in surf genre, "Surf Bird" was one, etc. He's been covered in acceptable, reliable articles. Also his Bio on AllMusic says he dealt with major labels. He has made a significant contribution to the genre! OK, music aside for now. Seems he appeared on TV many times, more than the times he was kicked off which includeLou Gordon's TV show (see The Owosso Argus-Press, August 9, 1971 - Page 13 TV Host Clips a Right-Winger). That was also talked about in the interview of Hilder in the Los Angeles Free Press, (August 4, 1972 Part Two, P. 6), Gordon's show was on Ch. 15, Kaiser Broadcasting station. I know he's interviewed Republican politician George V. Hansen on tv about the Panama Canal. The 3 page article about Hilder, and interview (see Los Angeles Free Press, August 4, 1972 Part Two, Pages 6 to 8. article: "Free Rightist Interview) on page 7 says he was the director of various organizations COBRA (Committees Opposed to Racism and Bigotry in America), and the founder of BBC (Boycott British Committee). Also on the page it says he was a member of the Free Rightist Movement (A Libertarian organization). So he would have appeared on TV multiple times. His status in politics and radio host (though not easy to track down immediately) is shown in very reliable sources.
    The reason why there's a desire to delete this article appears to be because of the fact that Hilder has prominence in the Truth movement, involvement with people like Mark Dice, Myron Fagan, Anthony Sutton, Senior FBI whistle blower Ted Gunderson, and Bill Cooper the activist. So in a bid to clean up the tin foil hat nonsense we delete a notable, important and integral part of surf music and California Music history! Oh, and Hilder also recorded Latino artists too that are not mentioned in the discography. Karl Twist (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice to the closing admin
    There's an issue here that needs to be addressed. I ask that you to please extend the time for another week. First of all, this article should have been listed in the list of Music-related deletion discussions category. It hasn't, so it had a fair hearing! At 11:45, 23 January 2019, I asked the question, "Shouldn't this have also been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions on the 19th?" and nobody replied. Also because Anthony J. Hilder has been put on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and I believe it has attracted more of a one sided view of the argument. Can we re-run it for another week please and with Hilder listed in the Music related discussions? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing a lot of mentions in book, just a few here [13][14][15][16]. Most of them however appear to be just passing mentions. I'm assuming Karl Twist is claiming notability based on WP:MUSICBIO #7, which he should clearly state to be so if true. He should however recognize that Discogs is not consider a reliable site per WP:RSP, and should avoid filling the article with references that don't contribute to notability, in fact obscuring what might be the useful ones. I'm leaning towards keep, but the article needs tidying up. Hzh (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a train wreck of a debate. I would urge the participants here to cut down on the walls of text and limit themselves to their main arguments. If a subject is notable, all it needs is two or three in-depth sources to show that, not reams and reams of text that I for one am not going to read.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karl Twist (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have not looked at the article or most of the content above, but from the sources given by 3 editors immediately above, it appears that there is significant and sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources, so he meets WP:BASIC. It seems that part of the coverage is for his music industry work, and part for his conspiracy views, but it's not necessary for him to meet specific notability criteria when there is sufficient overall for him to meet WP:BASIC. If the article needs improving, that is another issue (and, from the comments made above, seems to be controversial in itself). RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • CONCERNS I am concerned about the recent edits that are happening. Possibly too much content may be taken out which may hinder improvement of the page as well as some of the good refs. Could we please keep an eye to make sure not too much is removed too soon. BTW: Here is a viewable article: Who Put the Bomp, No.14, Fall 1975 - Page 12 - 13 "The Tony Hilder Story"
  • Articles, sources etc to improve the page
    This can improve the article with content from these.
    Karl Twist (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – When I last left comments here, I mentioned coverage from reliable sources during his brief stay in Anchorage, Alaska approximately 30 years ago. I'm a little busy with real life as of late and haven't had the time to go to a library to examine the following in further detail. Additionally, it appears that NewsBank has changed its preview mode a little bit over the years, understandable when you consider that they're on the net to make money, not to assist free information scavengers. Anyway, as seen here, a NewsBank search of the Anchorage Daily News turns up 28 hits stretching over a span of four years. At least four or five of those hits appear to constitute significant coverage of Hilder or his activities while in Anchorage. That includes the hits from 1992, or after Hilder left town. If Hilder worked in radio in many different markets as has been claimed, it would follow that he would have received similar coverage elsewhere. A place like Los Angeles would be an exception to that rule, as the local media there gives greater emphasis to stories pertaining to topics such as celebrity worship and car chases on the freeway. As for the claim that zines don't count as reliable sources, the article on Factsheet Five states that zines were of sufficent enough interest to major libraries such as the New York State Library and the San Francisco Public Library that they include them in their collections. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:07, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Counter (album)

AfDs for this article:
Over the Counter (album) (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 has previously been deleted: once on 4 April 2010 and again on 29 July 2013 Article consists of 4 sources [17] [18] and [19] are from Discogs which is not a reliable source and [20] is a fan made blog which is not a reliable source User:Mysticair667537 (talk 10:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest speedy deletion - Do we really need another discussion? It has been deleted twice before and there's no new indication of notability in the article currently. Pretty sure this should be a speedy candidate.--NØ 07:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 26 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) 00:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Edmonds

AfDs for this article:
Bob Edmonds (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)

He was only known for a single event. Any useful information could be moved to the article on the corporation he sued. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the 2005 discussion was about a different person with the same name, so it's irrelevant to whether this should be kept or deleted now. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability claim here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who's earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia by his own accomplishments. In theory, our article about lottery fraud could be expanded to include content about this particular variant (it currently covers only the "advance-fee e-mail spam" version, while not even touching on the "retailer theft" kind), which could thus briefly mention his case as an example of it — and there's already a bit about the case in Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation itself as it is — but none of this is a reason why a victim of this type of fraud would warrant a standalone biography of him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to this content being merged into the lottery fraud article, or the OLC one. DS (talk) 18:16, 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 merge to The Blueprint 2: The Gift & The Curse. czar 15:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bounce (song)

The Bounce (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)

Does not meet WP:NSONG. User continues to rely on a website cited as unreliable per WP:USERGEN. Content can be incorporated into the The Blueprint 2: The Gift & The Curse, which is mainly just composed of critical reception and an unverified background section. Ascribe4 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 2 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Note: I am discounting the sole comment as it does not cite a valid rational based on WP:PAG. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smuckers (song)

Smuckers (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)

Does not meet WP:NSONG. User continues to rely on blogs and websites cited as unreliable. Any verifiable content can be incorporated into the Cherry Bomb under Recording and production / Music and lyrics / Promotion and release. Ascribe4 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Tyler is a popular artist, and virtually no collab will go unnoticed.ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 01:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 2 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. North America1000 02:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharm Australia

Biopharm Australia (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 notable per WP:ORG. I couldn't find any unrelated sources to add to the article to support the statements made in it. There are passing mentions online related to the Cartrophen brand of product that the company sells, but no significant coverage of the company itself. DferDaisy (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Promotional article started by a single-purpose user about a private company, no independent sources provided, no good sources to be found, no assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:07, 31 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 02:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Halliwell

Miss Halliwell (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Nothing in the charts and the only coverage is in local newspapers and provide barely any information on the band. SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple more items of coverage found that are not cited in the article ([21], [22]), but it's all quite local, and I don't see that the band made enough impact to justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of cats

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

This is a WP:SYNTH article by definition. No source looks at media coverage of cats as a subject except for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were cats, then the sources at this article would go towards the notability of cats (though not very much given the source quality). This title is specifically about media coverage of cats though, and none of the sources discuss that topic at all. It's a pretty clear WP:SYNTH and not really a useful redirect either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Media coverage of cats" is the wrong title for this article - it's actually a List of media that provides news to cat lovers, as its second sentence reveals. "Media coverage of cats" might be notable - there is an article about it in the journal Journalism, called 'Taking animal news seriously: Cat tales in The New York Times' [24], and there is a book called Cats in the News by Martyn Lewis [25]. But this article is not about media coverage of cats, so sources about that topic don't help establish whether the subject of the article is notable. I will search again for "media that provides news to cat lovers". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has just been demonstrated, there are sources, including ap ublished book. The list of media is a useful part of the article, but I'd suggest keeping the present title. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is essentially an "in popular culture" list elevated to its own article. For this reason, I am against merging into cats. This needs an additional discussion of how media coverage of cats has made an impact on anything in order to be notable in its own right. In its current form, it is just a list and is of no added value to the Encyclopedia. I recommend deletion - an interested user can recreate at a later date based on the sources discussed above if they so desire. Bensci54 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable article. Maybe the title is not the right title. Cats are covered in the medias and it's a happening thing. Karl Twist (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above in my delete comment, your comment would apply to whether cats is notable, not this article. To make this article notable, there needs to be significant media coverage of the media coverage of cats. As of this reply, nothing has really been brought forward with sources that really demonstrate that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 1 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat lover culture

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

WP:SYNTH. Sources do not discuss "cat lover culture" as a distinct phenomenon. In the past we would have called this WP:CRUFT. jps (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete delete, oh wow. I dare say that all beloved species have "people" (dog people, bird people, horse people, mole people, etc.), and I would argue that combining an "[animal] people" phrase with the sexist cat lady stereotype does not prove a distinct "culture" by any stretch of the imagination. Neither do cat-themed shirts and coffee mugs. I also fail to see how cat people having distinct personalities (supposedly) from dog people counts as a culture. Sure, furry culture might be a thing, but that is much more well-documented than a few cute words used by cat fans on instagram. If this wishy washy topic did stick, I think it would need to have sourcing so hefty and immaculate that the harshest deletionist would agree with keeping it. Perhaps some of the material would work on a cats in film and media page/list, or even the cat lady page. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely cruft. A few sentences could be included at Human interaction with cats but this is not a notable encyclopedic topic. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is indeed a culture that surrounds people and their interaction with cats. Karl Twist (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I gotta go with Karl Twist here. There is plenty to be said on this topic, beyond what's in Human interaction with cats. Here's another cite pointing out an economic angle. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Roscelese. Hi there. There would better sources around if we all work to find them. Please just take a moment to think of this. While Human Interaction with cats may seem a place to merge this with, it doesn't represent what's going on in the world today. Believe me when I tell you this, there is an actual almost cat religion going on out there with many people. There are cat-fanatics out there. There are people who's life revolves around cats, as well as those people who just enjoy belonging to the cat scene. There is indeed a cat lover culture going on. No matter how strange it may seem to some of us or how we can't fathom the fanaticism that exists, there's the reality of what exists and to those people on the extreme end of the scale and the others at the milder end, it's real and they are part of the culture! BTW: This is a just a brief mention in The Travel, Jan 25, 2019 here but it may give an idea. Cat themed cruises where people "can meet fellow cat lovers and join a bunch of cat parties". Also in CNN, December 19, 2016: There is a "Cat culture" that flourishes online. See, it's more than human interaction with cats, it's interaction with other cat lovers / fanatics. There's a part of the culture. Karl Twist (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my last post above, There is a game called Cat-Opoly which is based on the board game Monopoly. With this game, cat lovers can buy cats instead of properties. See Bustle, Apr 12 2018 - Cat-Opoly, A Cat-Themed Monopoly Game, Is So Adorable That You Might Not Be Able To Finish The Game By Megan Grant, Metro, Friday 18 Dec 2015 - Cat-Opoly is like Monopoly, but better because you buy cats instead of houses - Francesca Kentish and OK!, Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - Cat Monopoly is now a thing - and it's the perfect board game for animal lovers By Miranda Knox At present there are 480 reviews for the game on Amazon. How can there not be a cat lover culture ??? Karl Twist (talk) 15:31, 2 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 no consensus. The discussion has gone on long enough, many harsh words have been thrown about, and essentially we're not going to get agreement on a course of action for this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)

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

No indication of notability, and it has little coverage outside of fan sites. Simple announcement of its planned production is not sufficient. Fails WP:GNG, and it's WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps a redirect to Big Finish Productions is appropriate until more sources become available. Hzh (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that I initially added the content at Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax here; it was TardisTybort that removed it from that article and R2Mar that created the separate audio series article. A discussion exists at Talk:Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax#The Paternoster Gang Big Finish series. -- /Alex/21 04:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that official sites are automatically disregarded, since independent sources are required to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. The article has been redirected and prodded/deprodded, but still we only see one official and one TV site as sources, and I can't see any others apart from fan sites in search. Wikipedia is not a fan site, what fans chose to decide is entirely irrelevant, you are required to satisfy the basic criteria for notability. Fans of Doctor Who (and you declared yourself to be one) cannot trump the policies of guidelines of Wikipedia, you cannot set your own special rules just for yourselves. Also we cannot assume that there will be coverage even when it is released. If there is no significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, then it fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take a more civil tone, and perhaps you'll find others willing to do the same. I see no tagging of the article to add more sources. Do you? Instead, people go directly to redirecting and deletion, without any proposition or discussion on what to do with the article's current content. Seems very bad faith. If you only thing that is needed is more "coverage from multiple independent reliable sources", then the article should be tagged accordingly. (Also, WP:GNG is not a policy; try again.) -- /Alex/21 11:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote "policies of guidelines", the "of" is a typo for "or". The guidelines of WP:GNG and policy of WP:V. It was made clear by Rosguill why it was redirected (lack of multiple reliable, independent sources), and it was entirely your decision not to improve the article when you restored it even though you are aware of the issue, tag or no tag (and the prod is a tag). I'm the third reviewer who saw a problem with the article. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline is just that, and the article is sourced per WP:V; no unsourced content is listed within the article. It was made clear, and there was no discussion or tagging on their part to help improve the article, no contribution to the already-existing discussion; they went straight to blanking content, not even moving it anywhere and redirecting it to an article when a more valid option existed. -- /Alex/21 12:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you argument is that WP:GNG should be ignored? WP:SOURCE of WP:V indicates that third party RS are required, which the official site is not (and the only one there when you restored it, even though you were aware of the issue with sourcing). Hzh (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Articles without third-party sources: An article that currently is without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance. Consider asking for help with sources at the article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject. Also consider tagging the article with an appropriate template, such as {{Third-party}} or {{unreferenced}}. -- /Alex/21 13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a systemic problem with all the audio plays articles, not just this one. I have already performed a WP:BEFORE can't see significant independent coverage. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the above quote. -- /Alex/21 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More over I added OUTSIDE references to The Paternoster Gang page including an article published by Digital Spy. I endeavour more often than not to source news broken by other online media outlets rather than just the official press release. Also from a journalistic stand point. If the main publisher issues a press release. Which Big Finish essentially does. This is a first hand source, reputable source. If it was rumor or hear'say then 3 verifiable sources would be required. R2Mar (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We get a lot of articles popping up on Wikipedia which are not necessarily notable, but which have official press releases. An official press release might be a great place to source evidence about what the creator of a topic has to say about it, but it doesn't do anything to prove that a topic is notable. Notability is demonstrated by people other than those who stand to make money off it writing about it, and not just on self-published media. --Slashme (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish be deleted due to lack of references too? If anything happened from this, then the best course of action would be to restore the edits listed in my second reply here: restore the content to the character's article. -- /Alex/21 13:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems worst now that I have seen the other articles on the audio plays by Big Finish. Many are sourced only to the official sites. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're going to have an issue with the thousands of television articles through WP:TV, where episode tables use minimal sources and use only themselves as a primary source. -- /Alex/21 13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of television articles don't qualify on notability ground, particularly season and episode articles. We will eventually get round to them. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you luck. -- /Alex/21 13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already tagged the problematic audio plays, someone will eventually start a mass deletion discussion if they are not fixed. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mass delete. Very disruptive and disappointing indeed. -- /Alex/21 14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions are a normal part of the cleanup of Wikipedia when non-notable topics are created en masse. It's unreasonable to expect that every non-notable article needs its own deletion discussion when there are scores of similar articles with the same problems. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But I'm not seeing any backup plan to preserve the tables at the two "List of audio release" articles, where they are transcluded from the articles. However, I guess that's a discussion to have later, as we're only talking about the TPG audio series article right now. -- /Alex/21 10:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's a simple matter of moving the transcluded parts to the right places and adjust the articles accordingly? You should be aware of the issues raised already, given that you edited in some of the articles already marked as failing notability criteria (or lacking sources, primary source, etc.) for years, perhaps you can start by trying to find sources so you can save these articles from deletion. Hzh (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Do you intend to do that? All I've seen are declarations of deletion. I'll look into the sources; I recommend you do the same, given that you're the editor with the concern. -- /Alex/21 14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the editors thinking it's notable enough for an article, not the other way round. There's no guarantee that it won't be a wild goose chase. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed true, we are only required to perform a check that these articles can qualify on notability ground. It is a greater problem here as there are a couple of hundred articles on radio plays that rely only on the official site as source. These articles were created before the system for checking newly created articles was implemented, therefore most have not been actively checked for notability. I think some of the articles can be saved (those that cover a series of audio plays), for individual plays it would be a lot harder, though not impossible as there may be sources not available online. I would recommend putting individual plays into a series to ensure that that the series article can survive. Hzh (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This issue popped up a few years ago. I don't remember what came of it (didn't involve myself in the discussion at that time), but the same points were raised. Whilst the entire series of works might be notable to a general encyclopaedia, each individual audio play might not be, particularly if there's really no real-world information to speak of. DonQuixote (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Independent sources almost always draw from the official sources be it network or studios. If there's an official source stating something and two independent sources stating the same, why should the official source be disregarded? With TV shows a lot of TV media websites get much of their general information from network/studio press releases, or Nielsen releases for ratings. Why would the official source be less valid than a third party one repeating the same thing? I would think the official source would supersede the third party one in almost every case for reliability. In this case Big Finish appear to be producing & distributing the audio dramas, to say they're not reliable or notable seems nonsensical to me. Esuka (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can propose to rewrite WP:GNG and all the notability guidelines. But for now, arguing against the guidelines is not a valid argument in this discussion. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to believe that, it also doesn't make my argument any less valid. The articles have enough notability to stay and I'll support them. Esuka (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Have enough notability" based on what criteria? Hzh (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my initial statement, you know the one you quickly dismissed as not valid. That's my argument, you can dismiss all you want, but again, that's just your opinion. It's not exactly good etiquette to do that. I'll also take my leave from this discussion now, since my vote has been cast. Esuka (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you said, but which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you basing it on? Which notability guideline supports your assertion that it is notable? This discussion is not a vote, please read WP:DISCUSSAFD, you are required to explain how the article meets/violates policy. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: Will you be replying to every "keep" decision? -- /Alex/21 23:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but the reason for this keep needs to be countered. It is the oddest reason to keep I have ever seen, given that it attacks the very basis of the notability criteria, yet claiming notability. Hzh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The GNG is perfectly clear: a topic needs to be discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. The "official" website is not an independent source. --Slashme (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is contextual, these are certainly notable within the context of science fiction media, audio plays of a major series such as Doctor Who are reported on, reviewed, and written about in the relevant publications such as Doctor Who Magazine and other genre/science fiction magazines and sites.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Wikipedia sees notability guidelines within the context of a subject: the GNG says that subject-specific guidelines are also applicable. However, the only subject-specific guideline that I can see that would be relevant is WP:NALBUM which starts off by saying "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Slashme (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if Doctor Who Magazine can be considered an independent source given that it is licensed by the BBC and tied in to the show? It does not appear to be independent of the subject, and might not be what we consider third party. Few of the radio play articles actually cited it, I'm just wondering about its validity as a source. Nearly all of the radio play articles rely exclusively on the official website, there is therefore a whiff of WP:PROMOTION, where Wikipedia is used to promote the products of a company that received little independent coverage. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although DWM is a reliable source, they don't go too much into the individual audio plays, not as much as the television episodes where they go into full detail in terms of history, production, analysis, etc. The most they have done with individual audio plays are Rotten Tomatoes-type reviews. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being licensed doesn't make it not an independent company or source. It's published by Panini Comics, and was originally published by Marvel comics. Marvel comics certainly isn't the BBC. Nor is Virgin who produced licenced novels for some time. The audios in question aren't produced by the BBC either, but by Big Finish. I really think this is a much broader discussion that should be raised in the specific Doctor Who Wikiproject, it's exceedingly bold to have gone ahead and unilaterally mass deleted multiple articles with no consensus or attempt to have the issues addressed or discussed in the appropriate way, especially when it seems you lack sufficient familiarity of the subject. It also seems bad faith when the discussion here is not even completed to have just gone ahead with that. (addressing Hzh there). DWM has covered audio plays extensively over the years so I'd say that was a mischaracterisation, and other magazines such as SFX also cover and report on them.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is this mass deletion you talked of that has apparently been started? No one has done that yet as far as I know. The articles have been tagged for problems found with the articles, and you are free to improve those articles so that they won't get nominated for deletion. Doctor Who articles aren't exempted from normal Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Also what is it with the accusation of bad faith? Hzh (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm yes they have, 'they' meaning 'you' specifically; you've done more than just tag some articles as you're fully aware and can easily be seen in your recent edit history, you've deleted multiple pages of content, i.e. a mass deletion, so I'm not sure why'd you'd be misleading about that fact. And the observation that those actions were in bad faith is exceedingly straight forward. There is an ongoing conversation, you chose to ignore this.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is right. I count 22 content deletions since this discussion started. -- /Alex/21 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean those redirected articles, no, those aren't deletions (only admins can delete them). Heavens, those pages have been tagged with notability issue for over 5 years, how much time do you expect to be given before you do anything about them? At the start of this, you complained about not tagging the article (and bad faith!), but when the articles have been tagged for so long, you did nothing about them. And I chose to redirect rather than delete, yet still the complaint! Hzh (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: To remove, get rid of or erase, especially written or printed material. The content was removed from those articles and they were deleted, hence: deletion. You appear to be assuming that I'd noticed those tags. I had not. So, why is everything "you", "you", "you"? "You" seem to be doing a lot of finger-pointing and little contribution here. Unfortunate. -- /Alex/21 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have no interest in semantics and how you might want the word defined, please read the various deletion guides (e.g. Wikipedia:How to delete a page - Note that removing all text from a page does not delete it) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and how Wikipedia use these words. I think you can better spend your time improving those articles rather than making irrelevant arguments here. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly request you don't put words in my mouth. I never said the page was deleted. I said the content was. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 12:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You agreed with the IP editor that those articles had been deleted and there had been mass deletion (you said The IP is right when he or she claimed that I unilaterally mass deleted multiple articles). If you want to argue that only the content had been removed, then you should not agree with him or her, and explain that content blanking (that is the term used when removing content) is not deletion (it is a deliberate misuse of the word in a deletion discussion). Note also that you had edited the articles tagged for notability concerns, it is therefore reasonable to assume that knew that the tags exist in those articles. Hzh (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking is content deletion. On a side note, it's always good to think through and preview your replies to prevent edit conflicts - seven edits? Just a handy note. Always nice to assume, never safe. -- /Alex/21 12:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting into sophistry here. The IP argued that I mass deleted many articles, then complained that I was misleading about that fact when I explained that redirects are not deletions. Do you agree with the IP there? If not, can we stop this silly argument? Hzh (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'sophistry' at all, it's dissembling and bad faith on your part; replacing an article with a redirect is absolutely deleting the article. -Is the article there? No. An article is its content; a page with a redirect is not an article. There's no argument to be had, that's an objective fact, and the only thing 'silly' is this ridiculous attempted denial of that.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are refusing to accept what the Wikipedia guides and guidelines say, in which case there is nothing more to discuss since we have no interest in discussing something that you defined yourself and has nothing to do with accepted Wikipedia usage and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh what utter rubbish, I've defined nothing; your 'accepted wikipedia usage' is nothing of the kind, you deleted the articles, replacing them with redirects, and were misleading about that, trying unconvincingly to conflate that with not deleting the page itself, and putting on this transparent pretense. Entirely inappropriate in the context of an ongoing discussion. You're the one acting outside guidelines no matter how you choose to dissemble. Weird use of the royal 'we' there as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"We" are the community of editors who have discussed and decided on the various issues affecting Wikipedia, including guidelines. There are guidelines in deletion discussion, and thus far you have avoided citing any of them, and ignored those I've cited, so what you said is largely irrelevant because we can only decide based on what's in the guidelines. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If DWM, SFX and other magazines have covered the audio plays extensively, then please cite them as this will help determine the plays' notabilities. Otherwise if it's just release announcements and such, that's not much real-world information to base articles on. As to Hzh's deletion of articles, they've only deleted articles that already have had notability tags for 4+ years. Those are within the boundaries of good faith. Most of the other edits have been adding notability tags. DonQuixote (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been a point to argue in an ongoing discussion DonQuixote, and certainly something that could be proposed in the appropriate place such as the relevant wikiproject, as has already been suggested, rather than circumventing that with a unilateral mass deletion and mass tagging with the explicit goal of mass deleting. And no, I disagree that is within the boundaries of good faith when they know full well that it they are currently involved in an ongoing discussion relating to the matter. Treating each of those articles individually is inappropriate in a case like this where it is a wider point relating to a group of articles. As per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable., such sources do exist, and could be sourced given sufficient time. Considering these will be in printed publications over a large span of time, and sourcing such requires specialised and considerable effort to effect over multiple articles, reasonable time should be given once the issue is raised with the relevant wikiproject who will be a much better position to assess the question. Being fans I assume some will have collections of relevant publications from which to source material, there's also guidebooks and the like.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are retained in the article histories. If you can find the sources that establish the notabilities of the individual audio plays, then it'll be easy to restore the articles and add the proper citations.
Also, right above WP:NEXIST it states 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...The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...[and not] a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.... Hate to break it to you, but most of the audio plays have not received any significant attention. DonQuixote (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The articles are retained in the article histories." They're retained in the histories because they've been deleted. They should not have been preemptively deleted and replaced with redirects when there is an ongoing related discussion, and the issue has not been raised for appropriate discussion with the relevant project. Your assertion is not an established fact, nor does what you quoted contradict the portion I did. DWM is perfectly sufficient to establish notability in the context of Doctor Who specific Audio Plays.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the bottom line is that if you can cite sources showing that the audio plays are notable, then that would be helpful. As to the ones that have been deleted, they already have had notification tags for 4+ years. Those were justified considering the length of time involved. The rest have been tagged just recently.
As to WP:NEXIST, it only applies if there are a plethora of reliable sources that just haven't been cited yet. From my own experience with DWM, there aren't any. The most DWM has done is promotions and Rotten Tomatoes-type reviews, which isn't any significant attention (ie things that aren't promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity). If you can prove me wrong, I invite you to do so by citing reliable sources that show the plays' notabilities--which would be very helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, using any pre-existing tags does not circumvent that there is an on-going conversation on the subject, it was pre-emptive and inappropriate to go ahead with edits, they were quite happy sitting there for that time, they will be fine waiting until a course of action has been discussed. Since the conversation and question covers multiple articles it is not appropriate to treat them individually. 'Rotten Tomatoes-type' doesn't convey any particular meaning, the fact is there are reviews is because they are notable. Release information and the like is presented primarily because they relate to the subject the magazine covers, and are of interest to the readership, not for the sake of being promotional.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NRV: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition.
That is to say, one review from DWM isn't enough--each audio play has to have gained significant coverage. That means more than one review. DonQuixote (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact,significant means sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy., a review is attention and evidence of noteworthiness, since, it's noting it. There are also reference books such as Benjamin Cook's The New Audio Adventures, and Mad Norwegian Press's I, Who range.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reviews is evidence of noteworthiness--a single review isn't. Significant means both quantity and prominence. DWM itself doesn't have much prominence in and of itself so we would need more sources from other prominent sources such as the Times or the Telegraph. However, if they were to do an in-depth article featuring research and interviews, then that article would hold much more weight because it's what they're known for.
As to Benjamin Cook's book or the Norwegian Press books--why didn't you point to those when you were asked to do so? Those are the kinds of sources that add weight to notability. In fact, if you were to cite those in the respective articles, that would start to help in resolving the notability issue. DonQuixote (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been made a note of is evidence of noteworthiness, by definition. DWM is a prominent publication in the relevant field and context, that's sufficient. A prominent sports magazine doesn't have much prominence outside the field of sports, but can still be referred to in the context of sports articles. Just as a piece on something in the top chess publication would indicate notability within that field. Something doesn't need to have universal notability to have notability. They've also published special thicker editions on each Doctor that go into their audio stories as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to why I didn't point to them, I'm pointing to them now, that is the point of saying preemptive editing is inappropriate while there is still ongoing discussion (and the fact that they do exist adds weight to the earlier point regarding the Notability guidelines). Especially when it hasn't been raised with the relevant wikiproject; Where these types of print resources will be more likely to be available, and as this issue has spread beyond the discussion of just this audio and applies to broad category of articles, it's also inappropriate to be treating this one-by-one on an individual basis. There is a broader solution that could be applied with time and resources, and a consensus agreement on how to tackle it.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DWM is prominent in its relative field--such as when they publish well-researched articles and interviews. When they do a Rotten Tomatoes-type review, there needs to be more than one source giving such a review in order for it to be notable. That's the point. If DWM ever publishes a well-researched article on, say, The Hunting Ground, then there's no question that the audio play is notable. However, if they're the only one reviewing it, then that's not notable since no one else feels the need to review it.
As to the other sources, please keep bringing more sources as that would help more. The point is that you'll add more weight to keeping the relevant articles if you bring reliable sources that other people can check. DonQuixote (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they're noting it by way of a review then it is, ipso facto, notable. Again 'Rotten Tomatoes-type' is not a meaningful phrase, a review is a review. And as mentioned they are not the only source, so the repeated references to 'only one' are moot.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is meaningful in that I specifically chose that phrase to emphasise the fact that you would need a handful of those types of reviews in order for the subject to be notable (even Rotten Tomatoes admits as much in terms significant coverage--ie, the number of reviews required in their scores being meaningful). That is, "significant coverage" specifically means that the subject is discussed by a good number of reliable sources. One source by itself is definitely not "significant coverage". Overstating the significance of a single source is seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel. DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it isn't meaningful because 'rotten tomatoes-type' doesn't mean anything specific afaics. And again, if they're noting it by way of a review then it is, ipso facto, notable. 'Significant' by definition means, sufficiently important enough to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. A demonstration that attention was given to it and it was considered worth being noted, in the context which it is specific to, isn't overstating anything. Other sources have already been raised, so any point about it being a single source is moot. The point is there's sufficient reason to operate on the premise that multiple sources exist, and as per the notability guideline, the criteria is that such do exist not that they are present in the article, so it that counter-acts that being the rationale for deletion. Going forward, the correct course would be to raise a discussion at the wikiproject on moving forward with adding these sources in an organised way to the articles, with an appeal for project participants with access to collections of the print resources necessary.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a definition of "significant", but that's not the definition of "significant coverage", which is the key phrase. A single reporter showing up at a press conference is not significant coverage. Ten reporters showing up is better coverage and probably significant. Fifty reporters showing up is definitely significant coverage. It's as simple as that. So WP:NEXIST isn't about assuming such coverage exists and starting from there but about such coverage existing in the first place but not being present in the article in question. DonQuixote (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that, significant coverage can be and is also contextual, if the recognised top official magazine of the international chess organisation runs a review of a specific chess match, that can considered significant coverage within the context of chess related coverage for that match. Chess matches may not garner much in the way of mainstream media coverage, but within the context of the chess field of interest the recognised top chess magazine would be a significant enough publication to confer that. If only one media source gains an interview with a reclusive author, it's not insignificant because the only source of information related in that interview is the only interview with that person. And this is still beside the point, as you appear to be side-stepping the point that this is not a single source, others have already been pointed out, and there's sufficient to demonstrate equivalent coverage in such reference works will exist or be produced for these audios. Such is the nature of popular science fiction media. That is what satisfies the criteria of WP:NEXIST.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. Individual chess matches aren't notable for an encyclopaedia unless a significant amount of mainstream media covers it. Individual authors aren't notable unless a significant amount of mainstream media covers them. Yes, the interview itself might be significant in terms of the author, but if the author himself isn't notable in terms of receiving significant coverage, then he's not going to appear in an encyclopaedia.
And WP:NEXIST is not about what may come in future but what exists now. At present, there isn't enough coverage at all. You have to start with significant coverage and not expect everyone else to wait for it--if it even comes. If Memory Lane ever builds up enough coverage to warrant an article in a general encyclopaedia, then ideally that's when the article should be created. If it doesn't, there's always tardis wikia. DonQuixote (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, you keep to asserting something isn't 'significant coverage' if there's only one source, I have pointed out multiple times, explicitly and with emphasis, that this line of argument is moot since other sources for coverage of the audios have been raised, that aspect of 'significance' has been answered; individual sources can still be considered significant or not in of themselves, you could have multiple sources that do not rise to the level of being significant, and some a lot more significant than others. Arguing that DWM isn't 'significant coverage' because it's only one source, isn't a valid argument in the latter context. Nor was any part of my point about what may come to exist in the future, those reference books exist now, in the present, and I'm sure more will exist right now, in the present. The tense is a bit ambiguous there granted, but it was an additional point either way.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a valid argument when it comes to an encyclopaedia and especially considering the type of coverage in DWM of the topic in question. Seriously, the only one here being obtuse is you. One review in a magazine for fans isn't enough coverage for an encyclopaedia article. A few more sources can help, but not just a review in DWM in-and-of-itself. It's the most simplest concept possible. If a movie came out and it only had one review on Rotten Tomatoes, even if the review was published in the Guardian, it would not be enough coverage to be considered notable for an encyclopaedia article. The Guardian has more prominence than DWM and even it's not enough if there's one-and-only one review. It's that simple. To be clear, if the article itself was more than a review, like a well-researched article, then that would be sufficient, but a Rotten Tomatoes-type review isn't.
As for the reference books. It's fine if they exist now, but you can't argue that they may exist in future. That is to say, please keep finding more sources but don't expect other people to wait for you to do so. If an article lacks sources for 4+ years, then other people have justifiable waited enough time. DonQuixote (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for agf, but you literally just repeated the exact arguments I just refuted, and even started with "actually". No, it's not a valid argument because that aspect of 'significance' has already been repeatedly dealt with, it isn't the only source, so dismissing it as insignificant for that reason is not a valid argument. It is a significant source within the context of the subject of Doctor Who media, which is the point. And you're still repeating the meaningless phrase 'rotten tomatoes-type'; a review is a review. There's no basis for asserting a review in a major publication within the context of the field is insignificant. And while you might've argued ambiguous tense in the first post, I couldn't have been clearer that I was not arguing anything about the future. I don't know if you're being disingenuous or not, but simply repeating the same arguments when they've already been answered is not helpful. The point "but don't expect other people to wait for you to do so" is also not relevant when the proposal is that the on-going conversation be moved to the relevant project group so that a solution for the broad range of articles this discussion affects can be worked on, and the print resources available to the group be utilised. We do know those resources exist though, which is why that part of WP:NEXIST is relevant.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you didn't refute anything. You're failing to accept that reviews hold the lowest weight. Significant coverage in terms of reviews is that you would need more than one. What holds more weight are well-researched articles. And you're failing to understand WP:NEXIST--no one has to assume that significant coverage exists when there is none. The point is, no we don't know that such sources exist. You continually saying that they do doesn't prove that they do. What would be better is if you can cite those sources so that everyone else can verify that such sources exist. DonQuixote (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, those points were refuted. Repeating that more than one source is needed doesn't change the fact that more than one source has been presented, not merely asserted, specific examples that are readily verifiable have been cited in this exchange, so we do know those sources exist. Reviews in a significant source in the context of the relevant field do hold weight and are not insignificant, again when taken as one of multiple sources. There's no grounds for claiming that a review is too insignificant to contribute to this because it's only a review, it is coverage and in an appropriate source for this sort of content, and for that matter even the lowest weight by whatever metric of 'weight' you're applying, is weight. In the context of coverage of a fictional stories a review is adequate to demonstrate noteworthiness, since it directly demonstrates in of itself that the story was considered worthy of attention, and again, not taken alone but as one of multiple sources that cover audio stories, including those examples of reference works already cited. This satisfies NP:EXIST. There's also the point that this discussion has become broader than merely the specific audio stories in question and that a discussion should be raised at the appropriate project so that more in-depth investigation into what sources applicable to the multiple articles this affects can be had and a plan formed to apply those sources.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for providing more sources. That's a starting point. Providing more sources would give more weight to the topic being notable. And that's the point--it's better than a single source. Please provide more so that everyone else can verify that there's an unquestionably significant coverage of the topic. DonQuixote (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An appropriate course of action has been proposed to that end, we have sufficient sources to demonstrate coverage exists, not just 'a single source', we should move forward on creating a discussion in the appropriate place so a plan of action can be formed with those and other resources available to those in the project. There's no point continuing to repeat that more sources are better than a single source when we already have more than a single source.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DWM is not given in the article (and in very few articles on audio plays), so it is a moot point as far as this article goes. The only non-official source given here is Digital Spy which is just a routine announcement which really contributes very little to notability, and Digital Spy is not a high quality source. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a moot point, it is one example of extraneous sources existing, as per the notability guideline it doesn't matter if they're in the article at present. Your subjective opinion of their notability isn't relevant, that they are notable is demonstrated by their being sufficiently worthy of attention. Also Digital Spy is one of the 150 largest websites in the UK, largest digital property of Hearst UK.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are far larger websites in the UK (e.g. Mail, Sun, Express) that are not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community and should not be used as sources in Wikipedia. Should Digital Spy becomes an issue, then we can decide on whether it can be used as a source. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no indication that DS is an unreliable source, under Hearst they've both won and been nominated for multiple media awards, if it's your contention that they should not be considered reliable for some reason, strangely for information that is easily confirmable, you would need to present a compelling argument with supporting evidence.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Digital Spy piece is essentially an advertisement masquerading as journalism, and directly copies multiple paragraphs from the Big Finish announcement, starting with "the trio's adventures will see them face the first electronic automated cars in London (very ahead of their time), hordes of zombies, and ghost-like figures which are haunting Greenwich before their former selves have died..." That means that it's not independent reporting, and can't be counted towards the subject's notability. --Slashme (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'is essentially' is an opinion, and they are literally an independent source reporting it, so yes they can and do.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article are press releases and not WP:RS (Gizmodo might be borderline reliable, but, again, the article is merely a press release). Furthermore, I searched Google, -News,

-Newspapers, -Books, Newspapers.com and all I found were fan based sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of in depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. On a side note, I do not appreciate the walls of text, most of which appear to add little of substance to the discussion and at times seem to border on WP:BLUDGEON. As an administrator who occasionally closes AfDs this sort of thing is highly irritating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dolni Debar

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

The article is highly inaccurate and badly referenced. Also, the title is misleading. Nothing in the article describes any actual battle. The leader of the perpetrator side is mentioned as Moises the Great, actually referring to Moisi Golemi of Dibra, an Albanian leader. The article is purely a propagandistic and nationalist one. The intentional avoidance of the Albanians and Bulgarians whilst pushing the modern Macedonians term is a probable cause of a new mini Balkan war between wikipedians. The author seems to be highly unfamiliar with new article policies and best practices -Mondiad (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -Mondiad (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:43, 1 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Champions (Paid in Full song)

Champions (Paid in Full 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)

Does not meet WP:NSONG. User continues to rely on a website cited as unreliable. Any verifiable content can be incorporated into the Paid in Full (soundtrack), which nothing more than an introduction and a tracklisting. Ascribe4 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 9 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 Robert Todd Lincoln. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln II

Abraham Lincoln II (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)

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. Article subject only seems to be noted for Lincoln family connections instead of anything of his own merit. Per WP:BIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, that isn't by itself enough to warrant a separate page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —ADavidB 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page views and how long the article has existed are entirely moot arguments as they have nothing to do with a subject's merit. See the WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:POPULARPAGE sections of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more. As for "sufficient interest", there's also the WP:INTERESTING portion to consider. No amount of quality sourcing changes how this guy isn't really notable in his own right. Neither will sheer quality of content that it contains. Furthermore, the "no firm rules" bit is a cheap cop-out as that page is really talking about how policies and guidelines can change over time, not that we should disregard them whenever we please. It mostly seems like you're WP:Masking the lack of notability or at least trying to with such points. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article subject may be decided not sufficiently notable and removed, though I don't see any benefit in doing so. The sources are valid. The article has been present for over a decade, plenty of time for supposed lack of notability to have been discovered before now. Wikipedia is not running out of resources. Putting the information in other article(s) only makes it less accessible. —ADavidB 09:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Shakes head in disappointment) No surprise that you of all people wouldn't see such benefit in deletion when you created it and thus are more naturally inclined to defend its existence. Again, it doesn't matter how long the page has existed. Being present for over 10 years without any prior AFD isn't a valid excuse to keep it. I'm not questioning source quality, only saying that referencing in this case isn't enough to make this worth keeping. Regarding placement of information, see the WP:BHTT and WP:VALINFO portion of that page I previously linked on arguments to avoid. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion does not benefit WP. That remains my view, regardless of another's headshaking/disappointment. A deletion policy essay is not binding. More attention to WP:NPA is suggested. President Lincoln had several generations succeed him. While some were not individually notable, they do have information worth writing about. Inclusion of that information only in Lincoln's article, or in those about his successors that enough WP editors consider 'worth keeping', may result in their being considered too long. WP:SPLITTING such content to other articles is an accepted WP practice. While that wasn't the history in this article's existence, it is in effect the result. —ADavidB 16:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If one were too briefly sum up his important details into father Robert's page as Lockley proposes (birth, death, and illness), then that shouldn't have to take up more than a paragraph and thus not make it too long. The benefit of deletion or even merging/redirecting is that we reduce the number of unwarranted pages on Wikipedia (there are already more than I can count but those have nothing to do with whether this guy should have his own page). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's evident we're far apart on the inclusionism/exclusionism spectrum of viewpoints. WP is not a book; one is not required to carry its paper weight, or turn pages through every article. Regarding summarization, per WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." —ADavidB 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is a historical figure with plenty of sources, and the arguments for deletion misunderstand policy. For example, notability is not inherited contains an important counter-example: You can’t delete the First Lady’s article because she’s just the president’s wife. Here, it’s the president’s grandson. And article age and popularity are not, as claimed above, irrelevant — the policy is that they are not sufficient, standing alone. They don’t stand alone here. And as a good rule of thumb if we’re deleting pages about historical figures that people search for and that we’ve had for a long time, we’re in danger of embarrassing the project. Rule one is DBAD; to me, rule two is that we don’t do anything that we’d be embarrassed to have on the front page of the New York Times. Deleting Abraham Lincoln’s grandson because he’s “just” Abraham Lincoln’s grandson falls into that category. TheOtherBob 16:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I understood deletion policy quite well when initiating this AFD and still do, also the existence of other pages (i.e. First Ladies) isn't relevant to this discussion. My point on page views and article age is that they can't convincingly be used as arguments to keep pages. There would be nothing even remotely embarrassing about deleting a relative who overall isn't nearly as well known to the public as President Lincoln's wife Mary or son Robert. Source quality can't disguise the fact that he gets little to no attention outside of family connections. Being Robert Todd Lincoln's son isn't enough by itself to warrant a page and neither is being a president's grandchild. I'd have different thoughts if he was actually noted for something of his individual merit, which isn't the case here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you seem to make this far too personal — which doesn’t speak well for your position — and you need to get over it, because no one is personally insulting you by pointing out that you’re wrong in this instance. And your personal insult to the other guy — that nonsense about shaking your head — wasn’t appropriate. That out of the way, you haven’t offered a compelling counter-argument to the problem that certain subjects are notable because of their connection with really important and famous people —- and so historians have been interested in Lincoln’s grandson because he’s Lincoln grandson. And that, at bottom, is the determining factor. As I said, your error here is making it personal, but that extends also to your idea of notability. Abraham Lincoln II is notable to historians. They write about him. That’s why we have reliable sources. He’s not interesting to you personally? Ok... but that’s quite intentionally not the test, because what’s interesting to you and what’s interesting to historians may be different. A person who historians consider notable is notable, and deleting long-standing articles about historical figures is a good way to embarrass the project. While we could merge and redirect — which is a question of length of articles — the articles in question are much longer than would ordinarily merit that, and would promptly result in a desire to split them, and that option doesn’t make sense when the article is long-standing and frequently-visited. So the better option is to keep. TheOtherBob 11:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Making it too personal? Not at all; I was pointing out ways the subject doesn't really warrant a page. It has nothing to do with whether I'm interested in him. WP:INTERESTING states one's personal interest or apathy in something is a poor argument for keeping/deleting a page. Also, shaking one's head isn't by any stretch of the imagination an insult or attack at anyone; it simply expresses how I find it unfortunate someone can't seem to see something differently. Please don't mischaracterize my actions like that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, if you shake your head in disappointment at someone and then begin your comment by accusing them, it will be taken as an insult. It’s good to hear that it was unintended. But on the merits, I agree that your or my interest or apathy in the page don’t really mean much here — the question is whether historians and other reliable sources write about this person. And they do; that’s undisputed. We should tread super carefully when deleting a page about a historical figure for which there are reliable sources, because the only way to do that is to inject personal biases about what is or is not interesting — as on the pure test of whether or not the subject is notable under Wikipedia standards it’s not a close question. When considering whether to break the notability rules and delete it anyways, one thing we can and should ask is whether people use this resource — because this isn’t a list of Pokémon cheat codes, it’s a historical figure, and so if lots of people are searching for it then odds are that’s because it’s a useful encyclopedic resource. TheOtherBob 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if the head shaking came off the wrong way. Definitely no insult intended. Anyway, I'm not so sure a historian finding something interesting is any stronger a rationale for keeping than what Wikipedians think is or is not interesting. Deleting this wouldn't break any rules when this place isn't supposed to be a family history site as per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I fail to see how he could meet WP:BIO even with the referencing used so far. "Historical figure" sounds like a stretch when he's not a big name worldwide or anything. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya, but the thing is that historians (or other reliable sources) finding someone interesting is actually the definition of notability for this project. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." So if historians (reliable, intellectually independent sources) think a person is interesting enough to write about, then that makes them notable under our definition. That's the beauty of the project--you and I don't have to debate whether someone is a big enough name worldwide, we just have to apply a relatively objective set of criteria that relies on what experts (here, historians) have done. In terms of WP:NOTGENEALOGY, I don't think that including this could violate it--as that policy, which is about not creating list pages that include only family histories (and is thus a sub-policy of WP:DIRECTORY), states only that "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." This isn't that. Instead, I'd say the question arises under WP:INVALIDBIO, which suggests: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." So the question is whether "significant coverage can be found on" this subject. Because there seems to be plenty, it seems to me to fit the criteria pretty well.TheOtherBob 01:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't count sources closely affiliated with subject or family (namely a piece mainly on father Robert, something focusing on grandfather's grave, a tumblr post from some Lincoln family connection, and a presidential association's obituary), then that leaves us with a passing mention, a brief cumulative paragraph, one possibly decent paragraph when putting all text together on him specifically, a fair cumulative paragraph or two, a few offline references (one of which is a book on his dad) that I can't assess very well, and a book on President Lincoln. Remember that there's more nuance than a sheer number of sources (regardless of quality). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've mischaracterized the recently added Tumblr source. That site is one of several resources used by the Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection, managed by the Indiana State Museum and a northeast Indiana county's public library, to share the history of its holdings. The source is not a "post from some Lincoln family connection". I don't expect this to change your perspective, but do believe accuracy matters here. The dismissal of a two-page article dedicated to the subject, and based on two newly acquired letters by R.T. Lincoln, as an "obituary" seems uncalled for as well. —ADavidB 06:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for mislabeling who the Tumblr post is from. Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing the sources, just saying they aren't independent of the subject based on family connections and thus too closely affiliated with him to be considered third party. Coverage from references with such affiliations doesn't count towards notability regardless of depth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you list there are of a higher quality and deeper depth than we'd ordinarily require to establish notability -- so it's not just that there are lots of them, they're also entirely sufficient. Nor do I think that these raise concerns under WP:IIS -- which governs the independence of sources. That policy is designed to make sure that articles are NPOV, i.e., that we don't let people write about themselves or those close to them. This guy... well, "he's dead, Jim." And not only is he dead, everyone who ever knew him, and everyone in his family, is also dead. The last Lincoln descendant died in the 1980s. And that there are historical groups that have an interest in this subject (and others of the Lincoln family) doesn't mean that we discount their sources as being somehow less than independent -- it means that, holy cow, there are historical groups that have an interest in this subject, so the odds of it being unencyclopedic are pretty low. TheOtherBob 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mentions within sources aren't enough on their own. I wasn't doubting quality of Amy references for a moment, just noting that four of the used citations aren't independent sources, plus I could only find more than a total paragraph on him within one or maybe two of those not closely affiliated with this guy or his family. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these mentions are the entire source, and thus not brief. And all of the sources are independent; I assure you that this guy is not alive and well and editing Wikipedia, but rather is well and truly deceased. None of the sources are "affiliated" with this guy or his family because, again, they're all dead. They're not pining for the fjords. They're passed on. They're no more. They have ceased to be. They have expired and gone to meet their makers. They're stiffs. They're bereft of life, they rest in peace. If we hadn't nailed them to the perch they'd be pushing up the daisies. Their metabolic processes are now history. They're off the twig. They've kicked the bucket, they've shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. They are EX-LINCOLNS. (I can't believe I got to use that in an AfD discussion...lol.) TheOtherBob 00:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world are Abraham Lincoln Association, The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection, Abraham Lincoln Research Site, and Abraham Lincoln Online not affiliated? Their family connection to him is quite obvious with such publication titles. Something clearly linked to his family like that can't possibly be considered independent by any reasonable measure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are no current descendants of Abraham Lincoln. They have all died out, with A. Lincoln II's demise likely contributing to that result. References to "Lincoln family" thus don't have a same meaning as would be applied to other families, particularly in a present tense. That these organizations look at the former lives of members of the Lincoln family is not in doubt. Whether having Lincoln in their name fully invalidates notability of their publication subjects remains in question. —ADavidB 12:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These four sites could theoretically be managed by people from some other branch of the President's family (i.e. descended from a cousin), though either way are without a doubt pretty closely associated with him. Being a relative isn't the only way one can be affiliated with a person and their family (i.e. public relations team, close friends with certain family members), which would mean they're not independent sources on Lincoln. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When Commenting Be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One source is genealogical and should be replaced with a better one. As explained previously, the "Tumbler blog" is one of several resources used by the museum/library curators of a historic collection to communicate the history of their holdings. —ADavidB 03:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the Tumblr source. As the official blog of a museum, I'm happy to accept it as a reliable source. It still seems to me that the sources which are not genealogical (I include the cemetery website in that), including the two-page article and the blog, are mainly about his father's worries, grief and loss, or about his grandfather (the unveiling of the statue). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources identified as genealogical are no longer cited by the article. —ADavidB 06:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should automatically accept a museum blog as a reliable source, especially when it is not credited to a named author. Museum labels and annotation are frequently inaccurate, sometimes badly so. WP:SPS applies to museums just as much as to anyone else, and we can't even begin to assess whether we are dealing with a recognised expert until we have a name. SpinningSpark 20:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Robert Todd Lincoln and add a brief sentence on the circumstances of his death. This person has done absolutely nothing notable, the lad only made it to sixteen. Notability is only presumed if a person is covered in sources, it is not guaranteed. That is still an editorial decision; not everything found in sources can, or should, be made in to a Wikipedia article. The source coverage here is largely equivalent to the coverage of the children of present-day celebrities. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. The most substantial source is the Lincoln Collection blog, but that's not enough, either in substance or quality, to justify a stand-alone article. SpinningSpark 04:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The museum blog source is applied to only one short sentence in the article. Its degree of mention in these discussions seems significantly out of proportion. Regarding summarization, per WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." There is plenty of other sourced content here. —ADavidB 23:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if you were to cut it out, what would you be left with in terms of reliable, in-depth sourcing? SpinningSpark 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, per a 2013 USA Today article, a curator of the Indiana State Museum which publishes the suspect blog said "we're absolutely not about veneration" ... "We're an educational facility. My job is to present history as objectively as possible." —ADavidB 06:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. I think we normally do keep articles onchildren of Presidents, but not beyond that. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed, possibly with some merging. It is entirely appropriate for him and his death to be mentioned in the Robert Todd Lincoln article (and the last paragraph in the section "Life, illness, and death" possibly should be incorporated in the Robert Todd Lincoln article, as his death was obviously an important event in RTL's life), but Abraham Lincoln II himself does not seem to meet notability requirements - if Jack was not Abraham Lincoln's namesake and Grandson, but simply the son of an ambassador, I do not think there is any way he would have an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 8 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Magic Circle

Paisley Magic Circle (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)

Local club with no wider claim to fame. All references are primary sources with all but one to the club website. A search here has produced nothing worthwhile. Fails WP:ORG. Finally, there are generous chunks copied from the club website so also a copyvio issue. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Just Chilling:

I think you are wrong wanting to delete our page based on a search in the news section of Google and because a lot of the text comes from our website. It seems to imply that in order to have a page in wikipedia is not enough to be one of the oldest clubs in United Kingdom, be one of the founding clubs of the Scottish Association for Magical Societies, have more than 20 members in the London Magic Circle and the International Brotherhood of Magicians -one of them is even a FISM Champion-, as well as be extremely active in Charities and events (like the Paisley Spree which appears in your search), or by being the entertainers for many children charity events like the Variety Club Christmas Party or the Variety Club Outting Day were we entertain thousands of handicapped kids for free. Also, we are part of the last 80 years of the history of the City of Paisley, even some members entertaining the allied troops waiting in Greenock for D-day during World War II.

I think your search is flawed, as it just show news which have been properly positioned, which require proper SEO skills, something you usually find in paid businesses that have not a lot to gain for following a magic club but not in enthusiasts or amateur pages. Actually, if you do other searches like this one here you will find hundreds of references to us and our members, some in our facebook page, and many others on other pages like this one in the Daily Record about one of our older members, as members usually get more news coverage than the club itself, even if we all keep telling reporters about our club.

Regarding the content, is quite normal that a lot is copied from our website, as they have mainly been written by one of the more important historians of magic of the last century: Jim Cuthbert, who has been a member of PMC since the fifties. Now is in a Nursing home with dementia, but when he was diagnosed -and was still lucid- donated his more than 500 booklets on the history of Magic in Scotland to the National Library of Scotland, as you can read here.

So, Do you really want to close our page because a flawed search and your own opinion that we are 'just' a local club?

We are one of the most important magic clubs in Scotland and United Kingdom, which attract visits of the most famous magicians in the world, who come to visit when they attend BlackPool Magic Convention. We are an important part of the history of magic in Scotland and United Kingdom, so we have to be in Wikipedia so historians can document themselves about us, and enthusiast of magic can do too. Also for people wanting to learn magic to find us, read about us and wanting to join!

I hope you understand that you made a mistake wanting to close it.

Thanks. Guilleamodeo (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilleamodeo (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked about my affiliation and interest I responded the below message:

Dear Just Chilling,

Like you ask about my employer and afffilitaion, let me tell you that I am not employed or paid by anyone to do this. My name is Guillermo Amodeo, I am this one here, a member of Paisley Magic Circle who has been Secretary and member of the Committee, and from today also a former enthusiast of Wikipedia and a former donor.

To respond to you, let me tell you that I am the only one in the club with skills to mantain the wikipedia page, and we do not have the resources to pay anyone else to do it. I would understand that there was a conflict of interest if it was an article about my businesses, but the article is written about a non-profit club so people interested on it will find information quickly and easily, which is the use that one does to an Encyclopedia, Isn't Wikipedia one of them? This is not a website, nor an advertisement platform, is the encyclopedia page of a club whose committee's decides what goes on it, so I cannot possibly think what is written there that would be of interest to me personally and not in the interest of people wanting to know about the club. Actually, Would not it be also a conflict of interest to pay someone to write the page? I could influence him or her by firing them if they do not write what I like.

You are hiding behind a nick, finding reasons one after another to delete our page, one more absurd than the next, so I am now convinced that this is an exercise of 'we have too many pages and need to delete some' and we happen to be just one of the smallest fish in the tank, so we are doomed for you to keep the pages about people that become famous in a reality show or for behaving bad in television, at the expense of those who contribute to culture or history like we do. Go ahead and delete the page, that way you can keep your pages about TV personalities growing, but with these policies all you are doing is killing the credibility of Wikipedia, as it is as good as gone for me and for the many like us whose pages will share fate with ours. Of course I will publish in our Facebook page and website why we do not have a Wikipedia page anymore -people have the right to know what happened to it-. You can also delete the page I wrote about my film director brother -another conflict of interest I guess, even if he is a famous person in Spain-, you can also delete my account as I do not want to be part of a cynical organization that accuses me of conflict of interest when is acting on their own interest, rather than the interest of history and culture. This is not an encyclopedia anymore.

P.S. Will you also delete my public domain logo of Paisley Magic Circle from wikimedia?

Regards, Guilleamodeo (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by the person who wants to delete our page that he/she -I am not sure Just is a girl or a boy name- that cannot delete the logo becuase is nto an admin in wikimedia. I answered this.

Dear Just Chilling,

I have not interest whatsoever in deleting the image, as is not mine anymore. I donated it to the public -in case you have not noticed it-. The club has a right on saying how people can use the logo, but anyone in need of it can get it from there because I made that drawing public domain.

What I would like is for you to tell me when the page would be deleted to say to everyone in the club. I would also like to tell you that this policy will kill Wikipedia pretty quickly, and when Wikipedia is gone for lack of donations and interest, our club will still be alive. And even after the club disappears -If it does in lets say 20 years-, it will still exist in the history books and the Cuthbert Collection in the National Library of Scotland.

P.S.- If you are asking yourself about it, the decline you are seeing on funding is the result of asking for money with the argument of keep being free -as in freedom- but not extending that freedom or fairness to your users.

Have a good day.Guilleamodeo (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Copyright violations. Fails WP:GNG. I searched Google, -News, -Newspapers, NYT, and also the archives of The Herald and The Scotsmen, reliable newspapers from Scotland. No mentions "Paisley Magic Circle". Sources mentioned above are mentions only of the club (in several cases, Mr. so-and-so, who is a member of The Paisley Magic Circle) Please read WP:RS to find out what kind of sources are needed to keep an article. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete anytime now. I have already announced that you are closing our page in our Facebook pages here and here

Have a nice day and good luck keeping wikipedia alive. Guilleamodeo (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No doubt it's a wonderful club but it does not meet basic criteria for notability. Quoting from WP:ORG, "No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it".Glendoremus (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable organization, with the article created and expanded by one of its members, with resulting COI issues. --Lockley (talk) 05:28, 1 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 merge to 24th Hong Kong Film Awards. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the Century Award

Star of the Century Award (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 special one-time award, fails even WP:NEWSEVENT. No evidence of independent notability or long-lasting importance. I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason applies: Timmyshin (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Artistic Achievement Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Special Commemoration Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chinese Opera Film Century Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Century Achievement Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
People's Choice Hong Kong Film Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Timeless Artistic Achievement Award
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Special Commemoration Award
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Chinese Opera Film Century Award
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Century Achievement Award
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – People's Choice Hong Kong Film Award
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hatter

Nick Hatter (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)

Largely (self?)promotional article that does not pass WP:BIO about a life coach full of non-independent sources and passing mentions in the context of a now defunct companies fundraising announcements. AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from theNickHatter

I am the subject of this article.

This article is factual as far as I can see and backed up 16 secondary sources consisting of very credible sources.

Please, can you identify which statements, in particular, are self-promotional? If so, I think it would be best if we delete/rephrase those rather than deleting the whole article. What do you think?

In addition, there are interviews on me on national television:

Channel 4's 4Music (where I was a special guest on a popular TV show, Trending Live): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAQbuF2DZY

Cambridge TV (where I was interviewed about in-game advertising and entrepreneurship): https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2016/cambridge-tv-cambridge-entrepreneurs-giftgaming/

Please see Talk page for suggested additional sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Hatter

In addition, just because giftgaming is now defunct, does not mean it was not noteworthy. It was incredibly popular with equity crowdfunding, one of the most oversubscribed projects in 2014, it won TechCrunch Awards and featured on TechCrunch Disrupt Battlefield 2014,

My page has been the subject of much vandalism- if I was un-noteworthy, I don't think it would've been targeted as much :-) Just my two cents though.

Note I did not publish the majority of the information on the article.

--TheNickHatter (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interviews are not independent coverage. "one of the most oversubscribed projects in 2014" They asked for £10,000 and got over £30,000 instead. Џ 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What’s the difference between independent coverage and interviews? Is it not possible to have both? The only difference seems whether it’s written or not. In any case appearing on talk shows is pretty notable imho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.251.229 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — 31.14.251.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete interviews do not count as indepdent coverage because they do not go through the same level of oversight and debate in formation. Wikipedia is not meant to create notability, only cover those who are already notable, which Hatter is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. No WP:RS. Notability does not equal popularity. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, interviews are not independent coverage. @TheNickHatter I highly recommend you read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:NOTPROMO. I'd also like note that 31.14.251.229 is an IP that's only contributions are to this article and so its "keep" vote could very well be a case of WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’’Delete’’’ - I the subject am actually now in favour of deletion FWIW. I do find it interesting that it only got nominated for deletion because I challenged an editor’s decision regarding notability. In any case: It’s all ego and I don’t need Wikipedia to validate my achievements. I was honoured when my page was created however it’s cost me enough time and effort to ensure my info is correct and monitor my page against vandalism and all the email notifications about this thread. I have better things to do with my life - like serving others. I’ll agree with you that it should be deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s standards of notability. Please do go ahead and take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNickHatter (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Mr. Hatter himself rightly says Wikipedia is not meant to validate anyone's achievements, but to serve as an encyclopedia. BrightSide (talk) 18:04, 1 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. Tone 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mher Khachatryan (artist)

AfDs for this article:
Mher Khachatryan (artist) (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)

Second time for AfD for this subject who failed notability in 2017, and I don't think much has changed. There are suspect references (that went nowhere) to an "ArtPrize". Article is a long list of his exhibitions, so there is also a COI issue here. Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is poor, and nothing more found in a search. Most RS are about a single "artprize" exhibition. There's no breadth of sourcing here nor in-depth items that would allow me to easily extract the notability of the artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author) I admit that the article was previously deleted due to lack of media coverage. However, the artist and his works have presently been covered in several places by the worldwide media such as Metro (British newspaper), Booth newspapers, VZZM, Agos (Armenian newspaper), Golos armeni (Russian newspaper). It definitely meets WP:GNG.-VishalSuryavanshi89 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sourcing is poor, and the public vote at ArtPrize is not enough to cover notability in and of itself. Also, I recognize at least one vanity gallery in the list of exhibitions. [28][29][30]. --Theredproject (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted on Metro, I was unaware of that. I'm not particularly familiar with Golos Armenii, but they clearly have a public editorial staff [33] and don't appear to have any obvious editorial problems, which means that for uncontroversial subjects like artist bios they should be considered reliable. It also seems like at least one Armenian-language source that has been provided [34] has some coverage and may be reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Golos Armenii is also not an RS (would never merit a WP article). This is a 3rd nomination for an artist with WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:PROMO issues. We should have at least a major RS from a significant newspaper, tv network, independent book, chapter in an independent book etc. All we have are scraps from un-notable websites or free newspapers in the London Underground. He needs a WP article to get notability (and it relentless in pursuit of it). It should be the other way around? Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I already voted above, but I was able to find this additional Russian-language piece [35], which also appears to be an RS, although it also cites the Metro UK piece. I'm unable to search effectively in Armenian, but I would be shocked if there wasn't additional RS coverage in the language, given the coverage in Russian-language Armenian media. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember, this subject has been largely based in the U.S. since circa 2000. There is virtually no coverage in any U.S. media. I found a Grand River Rapids radio station article discussing his work [36]. Metro is a junk publication in the U.K. and not suitable for WP (the Daily Mail would be way above it, and that is saying something). For an artist who spends a lot of his time in the U.S., he is a ghost. Britishfinance (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as Britishfinance notes, there's definitely whiffs of UPE here, and SPAs seem to love this AfD. Much of the coverage appears to be incidental on the Metro coverage and per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Metro, it's unreliable. SITH (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closers. Read this AfD carefully. 3rd time this article re-appeared on WP (deleted twice before). Issues of WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:PROMO. All "keeps" bar one are IP-editors/author. Rosguill has provided some references, but any reading of them shows that they are not clear RS. There is no RS from a significant newspaper, tv network, independent book, or chapter in an independent book on this subject. Nothing; nor has there ever been in past AfDs. Subject needs WP to get notability – it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 17 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. bd2412 T 19:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting

2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting (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)

To steal the nomination rationale from a different mass shooting that was recently deleted at AfD: "With due respect to the victims, this event doesn't seem to be notable. While it is a bit early to tell, it seems that there's only routine coverage, and not every mass shooting is automatically notable." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Blaze

Jamey Blaze (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)

Don't think that this musician meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 9 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 per WP:NOTSTATS; usefulness is not an accepted "keep" rationale for articles. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of current fast bowlers in international cricket

List of current fast bowlers in international cricket (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 needed for an encyclopedia, WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I created the article following this discussion, in case this of use. Spike 'em (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The process of researching and maintaining this list seems to be original research which is not allowed, and Wikipedia is not a web host. If you want to maintain the list then you'll need to find another site to host it. Spike 'em (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be original research if it were not backed by data. Also there are lists of current sports persons that is maintained every week such as ATP Rankings and WTA Rankings for tennis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists require no research, they are reproducing lists available elsewhere on the web. Maintaining this list requires editors to search out and compile information. There is no guarantee that it is either up to date or correct, as it is relying on the competency / diligence of people who are not shown to be experts at performing this sort of task. If you want to maintain the list, create your own website to do so. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page also has lists of Strike Rate, Average and Total Wickets that are taken as it is from CricInfo. They are like ATP Rankings and WTA Rankings. So that stays?
You are the person who put the effort to create this document. why did you feel the need?
Because the list that was in Fast bowling was even worse (using subjective inclusion criteria) and I said at the time of creation that I'd happily ditch it. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well this article does have use as it shows up first when you search for fast bowlers. I dont really see any advantage of deleting it. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without this list according to cricinfo's outdated data, a few months back Oshane Thomas would be a Medium Fast bowler (so would be Usman Shinwari), Jasprit Bumrah would be a medium bowler, Mohammed Amir, Rubel Hossain, Kemar Roach, Lasith Malinga and Jhye Richardson would be the fast bowlers whereas the truth is while the first two may currently be the fastest in the world and latter ones hardly ever bowl even 135kph average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what? we are not here to correct cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are not here to correct cricinfo, but for information. which is what this page provides in a verifiable way. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you google for current fastest bowlers, this is the list that pops up, and so brings in a lot of traffic, instead of an outdated list that showed up a few months back containing names of players who haven't been playing for years such as Fidel Edwards, Mohammad Sami, etc, or players who do not bowl fast at all such as James Anderson, Lasith Malinga etc. Even sites such as sporteology have updated their lists and data from this one since this is more accurate and reliable.
Again, so what? WP:NOTEVERYTHING states : "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well not solely because it is true or useful but because it clarifies doubt about what is.. which is what an encyclopedia does.
  • Comment Are 38.122.7.210 and 69.181.193.136 the same person? Both addressees geo-locate to the same area (which is not a traditional cricketing hotpsot), and both spend most of their time editing this article. As per WP:DISCUSSAFD: Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely Spike 'em (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This mainly feels like original research which isn't allowed here on Wikipedia without a valued reference there. Also as its WP:NOTSTATS that will also make it invalid. Not Homura (talk) 10:15, 2 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidarids

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

None of the sources I have checked seem to be talking about some movement or unit. This looks made up. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 1 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 no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berserker (1987 film)

Berserker (1987 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)

I think this fails notability films. There are refs but as a fairly bad "B" film it didn't get any significant coverage. Few edits over the years and tagged for notability since 2014. Szzuk (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I found a couple of examples of coverage: [38], [39] (scroll down a bit), but I'm not convinced either is a sufficiently reliable source. Given the date of release, there may be print coverage that isn't available online. --Michig (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it does have coverage in reliable sources such as the book mentioned above and the one referenced in the article, horror news is possibly reliable, and there are a lot of reviews and coverage listed here page of links where the English ones do not stand out as reliable but some of the non-English ones look more reliable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:29, 26 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 List of airlines in the United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

List_of_airlines_of_Guernsey

List_of_airlines_of_Guernsey (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)

Partial copy of List of airlines of the United Kingdom Article Thameslinkrail (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone happy with merging with the List of UK airlines page? Thameslinkrail (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged with Uk airlines article Thameslinkrail (talk) 07:20, 27 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 Shantikunj. There appears to be a general consensus against retention. However consensus ends there. In such cases it is my usual practice to go with the best available alternative offered in the discussion per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawati Devi Sharma

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

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find any reliable sources quoting her as a notable person, and based on the article,it might not be right to classify her as a "social reformer". Those who think this article shouldn't exist should also have a look at the articles edited by User:Anusut, seems to be a case of COI Daiyusha (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Shantikunj. There may be more sources for her specifically, but what I have found (not much in English; there may well be more in Hindi) is about her in relation to the spiritual organisation and her husband (eg Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement by Lise McKean (University of Chicago Press, 1996) [41]; an article in United News of India about the BJP national president, which includes that he paid tribute at the shrine to both husband and wife [42]). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen I am from India, and based on my experience here, i can say most if not all "reliable" "Indian" sources will always be in English, such is the importance English is given here, Only "local" news agencies will be in Hindi because Hindi is not the native language of about 50% of Indians. There are national-level hindi news agencies as well, but they(on their own) certainly don't qualify as "Reliable". And based on that opinion, I ignored any Hindi sites that come up as a search result. Either way, I know Hindi and if anyone who doesn't know it want help regarding translation of a hindi source, i'm happy to help. Daiyusha (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge: Fails GNG. Confused about the rituals "....were to be performed without conducting any violence against a general perception of animal sacrifice.". A horse sacrifice without harming a horse? Otr500 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do rather wish that there was a 'WP:Behind every great man stands a great woman'. That is, a lot of women in history may have done noteworthy work but only their husband gets mentioned in written sources. Anyway, I have found an academic source for this person running the All World Gayatri Pariwar after her husband's death (and a quick scholar.google.com search indicates that this is a notable organisation). And there's decent evidence for her editing the journal Akhand Jyoti. (I've added these points to the article lead.) These might be considered substantial enough achievements to meet GNG? It would be helpful to find proper references for her Veda commentaries as well. Alarichall (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. it looks from p. 274 fn 15 of Daniel Philip Heifetz, 'From Gurudev to Doctor-Sahib: Religion, Science, and Charisma in the All World Gayatri Pariwar', Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 30.3 (2018), 252-78 doi:10.1163/15700682-12341433 that his PhD thesis discussed the subject of this article in more detail and that he'll be publishing on her in future. Alarichall (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have seen a quite a few LDS-Church BLPs deleted this week on the basis that any of their references were specific only to sources from their own organisation (which was the right decision per WP policy). This case would almost exactly meet that test; outside of her own followers, she is not notable. There seems to be a few eastern "gurus" in the AfD queue that keep trying to get their articles on en-WP for some reason. But outside very narrow sources (few of whom are RS), there is no material WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be careful about using Merge or Redirect with these "gurus" as there is often a strong WP:COI aspect to their article creation (per this BLP Gaur Gopal Das), and I fear they will keep coming back. I notice that nomination of this AfD also concerns WP:COI. Britishfinance (talk) 01:24, 17 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. Regardless of whether this is the best title, the subject seems to be notable. RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epizootiology

Epizootiology (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)

Unreferenced dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the sources, which indicate that veterinary epidemiology is now the preferred term (e.g. 1 , 2). This is likely why the textbooks on the subject use that term, whereas Epizootiology/Epizoology tend to be used by authors talking about specific cases rather than the subject as a whole.--Pontificalibus 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 1 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMan

AfDs for this article:
MediaMan (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 software that simply fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. WP:BEFORE does not bring me much except download links and blogs or forums, with books being about Mediaman Infotech. The references included in the article are the one in the AfD which are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to the following reviews, I believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.
MarkZusab (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MarkZusab WP:GNG requires significant coverage. For the Neowin one, I said it in my nom above, the review itself is PR per the link placement and the end and (at that time) did not have an editorial control at least (because of the author's name in the article, making it blog like). CNET one, eh. Is it really a WP:SIGCOV? I dont see much about the software itself here and is written by Download.com staff. Techadvisor and Techworld are the same one, but it is a solid one to use, thanks for finding it. Lifehacker reference is not a WP:SIGCOV, only the first two sentences are about the software itself, also a blog making it unreliable. And the second Softpedia reference is the download page from which content already exists in the first one anyways. Even with Softpedia and Techraptor reference, I feel it is too borderline for me to consider withdrawing the nom. If someone finds something else, I will immediately do that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunak Chakraborty

AfDs for this article:
Shaunak Chakraborty (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:NAUTHOR, at least two of the cited references are blog sites, which are generally unreliable sources. Was previously deleted via AfD, was recreated as draft and then moved to main space by the creator without any independent review. Dan arndt (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually in order to be considered notable there should be significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was previously created as a draft but the article’s creator moved it into the mainspace without any independent reviews/assessment, probably because they knew it wasn’t notable and was unlikely to be supported. Dan arndt (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is no webhost to popularize young authors until they may become eventually notable, but to cover topics that are already notable by our standards. Please use other Internet venues to promote this author - there are really enough possibilities out there (social media, PR platforms, blogs, etc.). Please also disclose a possible conflict of interest if you have a personal or professional connection with this topic. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of numbers, so stop adding references to user generated blogs. It is the reliability and independence of the sources added. 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav Shrivastava

Anubhav Shrivastava (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 author and consultant. The currently used blogs and thinly-veiled promotional interviews on PR platforms do not establish notability (per WP:GNG). A Google search just showed more PR activities and passing mentions, but no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Williams (entrepreneur)

Taryn Williams (entrepreneur) (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)

Unwisely accepted from AfC. A combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism . The awards are relatively trivial--among the many such awards that are not recognized for ntoability and serve only for PR The Huff. Post is unreliable for notability , especially of blps. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- where is the policy or consensus that Huffpost is unreliable for notability? I was under the impression that opinion articles are not reliable, but if they are written by staff writers as is the case here (Andrea Beattie, Small Business Writer, HuffPost Australia), they can be is considered as reliable. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's too much close paraphrasing from the sources for my liking. Quite a few of the choicest puffy phrases ('turnover in the millions', 'two-sided marketplace for creative talent', 'over 6,500 talent on the platform') are directly copied from [onyamagazine.com/australian-affairs/onyapreneurs/onyapreneur-taryn-williams-founder-of-wink-models-theright-fit here] according to Earwig's copyvio tool, and a lot of the rest of the content too close for comfort. If this is kept, it needs a severe pruning to remove puffery and copyvio. GirthSummit (blether) 16:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a problem with this. There is significant and sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources: The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and the Huffington Post staff Small Business Writer. In addition, there is coverage in Marie-Claire [50] and Business News Australia [51]. Definitely meets WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like a clear violation of WP:PROMO. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. I think it's also an obvious COI problem we need to address, at least. Skirts89 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article only exists to promote its subject. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have removed promotional content.Ha.Mark.De (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ShunDream who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

(I think you meant WP:AfC) GirthSummit (blether) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I did. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 31 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) 01:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Anton

James Anton (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 article created in 2007. All of the sources (Allmusic, Discogs, IMDb) are user-generated content and none is WP:RS. A search turned up nothing RS. WP:AGF, but I could find no evidence that he has worked with any of the musicians named in the article. Non-notable session musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician, no claim to notability other than by association.--Pontificalibus 12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons stated.Vmavanti (talk) 21:52, 26 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) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome version history

Google Chrome version history (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)

Contested prod. WP:NOTCHANGELOG explictly states Wikipedia is not a repository for software change logs and similar items. All the sourcing is primary - there is no secondary discussion of the significance of each version. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This provides a very useful source of information which would take considerably more time to find elsewhere
  • Keep There may not be any secondary sources in the article, but they certainly WP:NEXIST. I just searched Newspapers.com for ' "Google Chrome" version', and over 1200 results came up, from 2008-2018. Some are syndicated stories published in multiple outlets, but even taking duplicates out, there is plenty of SIGCOV just in ordinary newspapers, let alone reviews in computer magazines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The table is excessive detail. Some prose describing major milestones would be more appropriate.--Pontificalibus 18:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, but in practice it can become too bloated, like the Chromium history. Having a table that's hidden by default is better than a giant wall of text. -Pmffl (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Since this and the Firefox history page were nominated at the same time, it's worth considering other browser articles too. I took a quick look at some of these. The Microsoft Edge and Vivaldi pages have changelog tables that are a similar copy-paste of release notes. As stated above, I advocate for keeping these tables but making them minimized (collapsed) by default. I also agree with others that the info can be pared down to major releases, rather than a copy-paste of vendor's release notes.

The Pale Moon article also has a table. Today I changed it to collapsed by default. Here's a permalink in case it changes. (I would prefer to integrate the legend and possibly some other changes to the table, but I haven't made any edits to it besides the collapsing default. The content can be trimmed as well.) For now, I just wanted to share this for discussion purposes. That way it can be more consistent for browser articles. -Pmffl (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COLLAPSE says content should not be collapsed by default as it creates accessibility problems. I don't believe collapsing these tables is a viable alternative to deleting them.-Pontificalibus 07:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. From that MOS: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)." So a collapsed version history table could supplement a brief prose section of browser history. The Pale Moon article is a good example of this. -Pmffl (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO. I too searched Newspapers.com for the search listed above. Of the first 5 articles, only one briefly mentions new features but they are basic things like opening tabs and security fixes, nothing along the lines of the list (from the Owensburg, KY Messenger - Inquirer 19 Dec, 2011). Aurornisxui (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be kept as it is notable softwere and merging it with the Google Chrome article would be a eyesore for most people who read that article Abote2 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abote2 Do you have any non primary references that deal specifically with what this article is about - Google Chrome version history? Aurornisxui (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 26 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) 16:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woodmeister Master Builders

Woodmeister Master Builders (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 significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even throwing in this Worcester Telegram piece [52] there just isn't the level of coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH to justify keeping this article. Lots of local and well-regarded businesses aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. This appears to be one of them. Bakazaka (talk) 03:01, 2 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 merge to Hambledon Club. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping this. Unfortunately the consensus ends there. In such circumstances WP:ATD applies and I typically go with the least extreme course. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Land (cricketer)

Thomas Land (cricketer) (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 was de-PRODed to start a more in-depth discussion. The original reason stands: "Fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines - did not play at first-class cricket, and his association with the Hambledon Club seems to be limited - it was formed after he left the village, and he appears to have just organised informal village matches prior to his departure."

I'll add that a WP:BEFORE search results in just a handful of single sentence mentions indicating that the topic fails WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Selective Merge - lack of reliable sources that show any real notability tend to lead me towards delete here. I'm just not very sure he was all that notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Updated: I'm entirely happy with a merge as discussed below. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before the MCC, there was "Squire Land's Club" which was the foremost cricket club in the country. Thomas Land was the organiser of cricket in the area and so is one of the founding fathers of the sport. But he wasn't just a cricketer – he was also master of foxhounds for the Hambledon Hunt. The Hambledon Hounds were kenneled at his Park House in Hampshire, which still seems to be a listed building. So, the subject was a local grandee and a key person for more than one sport. I'm just getting started on this but reckon that, rather than deleting anything, we should be creating several more articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so should not confine itself to narrow enthusiasms like cricket and warships. Topics such as this are good background for comprehensive coverage of the period, helping us understand its rich history and heritage. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone has access to the book Start of Play: Cricket and Culture in Eighteenth- Century England by David Underdown (Allen Lane, 2000) [53], both the Google Books search result ("There was of course no real squire in Hambledon at this date, but the Lands were prominent residents - it will be recalled that Thomas Land had been ...") and the snippet view suggest there is some coverage of Thomas Land. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hambledon Club, unless and until sufficient sources can be found to support a standalone article. I'm not sure that "Saturday died, in an advanced age, Thomas Land, Efq. of Hambledon, one of the moft celebrated fox-hunters in Great-Britain." is quite the length of obituary needed to satisfy WP:BIO, as I would guess most landed gentry would recieve a similar such note of their passing in the 18th century.--Pontificalibus 10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I don't think there is a strong case for Land being encyclopedic, but it seems that the Land and his father were someone important regionally during the period. Here are two excerpts from the Underdown book:
...The Waltham Blacks [Blacks were poachers, see Black Act 1723] drastically reduced the number of deer in the Hampshire forests, and even after 1723, when several of their leaders were executed, sporadic violence continued." Some of the violence occurred at Hambledon.
Among the leading inhabitants was a wealthy yeoman named Thomas Land, from one of those families who were climbing the social ladder towards gentility. He had been John Collins's colleague as churchwarden but was on the opposite side in the lawsuit over the alterations to the church, and it is possible that he disliked Collins's attempt to curry favour with the young men of the church choir. Young men were particularly vulnerable to the lure of deer-stealing, and Land may also have been unpopular with the poaching fraternity because of his apparently Whiggish politics - the Blacks tended to have Jacobite sympathies. At all events, not long after his breach with Collins a group of men broke into Land's coppice, collected straw and kindling, and set fire to the stacks of wood there. The suspects included at least two Hambledon men: Richard Martin,, a shoemaker, and Thomas Taylor, a blacksmith. A third suspect was a tailor from Bishop's Waltham, John Collins, junior, presumably a relative of the Hambledon churchwarden. All this suggests that there were people in Hambledon who were inclined to resist authority, ... [more on deer stealing] ... (p104)
... The newspaper describes Hambledon as 'Squire Lamb's Club', presumably a misprint for 'Land'. There was of course no real squire in Hambledon at this date, but the Lands were prominent residents - it will be recalled that Thomas Land had been the victim of an arson attack by the 'Blacks' in 1723. This Thomas died in 1767, and the patron of the cricket club is more likely to have been his son, also named Thomas, who was born in 1714. However, it may be that Land's role in the club was being exaggerated by a newspaper unable to comprehend all the intricacies of the local social order. ... (p109)
My reading of both excerpts is that Land did not make an especially significant contribution to Cricket. He or his father may be encyclopedic due to local politics, and Underdown's book suggests there is more, but I can't find it. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:29, 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 Merge into Firefox. This is a complicated close. By the numbers, there are four !votes for "Delete"; four !votes for "Merge", two !votes for "Keep or merge", and six !votes for "Keep". However, four of the six of those arguing to keep the article are either IP's with relatively low edit counts, or in one case a brand new user account whose only participation in the encyclopedia is in this discussion. The opinions of such participants, while considered, may be discounted due to the likelihood that they will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of material (and to a lesser degree due to the difficulty in controlling sockpuppet voting, although there is no allegation of that in this discussion). Even among seasoned editors, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of the material altogether, but there is also a clear consensus that it should not exist as a freestanding article. It will therefore be merged into the appropriate section of the Firefox article, and collapsed so as to not take up disproportionate real estate when that article loads. bd2412 T 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

Firefox version history (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)

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a change log, nor a venue for speculating on future software releases. No third-party sources that state any of these changes is notable. Inherently this has primary sources only. Wtshymanski (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The Google Chrome history page was also nominated at the same time. I shared more thoughts on this matter there, so won't repeat it here. I just want to make sure that whatever the consensus is should apply widely to browser articles. -Pmffl (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All that's needed in Firefox is an external link to here and some prose supported by third-party sources concerning significant milestones. Nothing from this article should be kept.--Pontificalibus 10:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes I concur with the revelation that "Wikipedia is not a change log, nor a venue for speculating on future software releases ... ." But I disagree that this article satisfies that criterion. It's not a change log, it is a verbose assessment which historically tracks the evolution of this browser. It is of historic value to users. I can see how it may be mistaken for a change log, but on scrutiny, it's much more elaborate than a simple change log. Also it's much more useful than a simple change log (which lacks the context that this article includes). To delete this page would only create a need to redo what must be a huge amount of organization, formatting and review. The page is very well done. While it's thorough, still I would point out that this page doesn't satisfy the designation of WP:IINFO. While I concur it's specified that Wikipedia is "not an exhaustive" list of software updates, I would point out this page is not an "exhaustive" list - which would be much more verbose and detailed. Also, merging this page into the main Firefox article would be against my better judgment. To take an already long and cumbersome article and add an even longer and more cumbersome article to it would create a page so bloated that it would immediately need to be split up again. Also, I recognize that my choices were "delete" and "merge," but I beg for your forbearance. In any case I hope this helps more than obfuscates. B'H. 172.250.246.150 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator, but delete It's not notable that software releases occur. It's not notable that there are bug fixes. There,s no context for any of these trivial incremental fixes and updates (down to the 4th place of the version numbering scheme and at intervals of a few weeks), no indication of why they were necessary or what significant impact they had. If someone wants to read the change log for the project, they can read it at the project's own web site, they don't need to see it on a general coverage encyclopedia. Bus schedules and telephone directories are terribly important useful documents too, but we don't collect those here either. Major architectural changes ( "Version 37.0 - converted from FORTRAN to COBOL for improved maintainability") or fixes for notable bugs ("Version 17.01.01.01.0007 - fixed problem that depopulated the entire island of Manhattan") would be encyclopediac. The rest is just a maintenance check sheet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same logic I gave for the related "Google Chrome version history" AFD. SJK (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has often helped me planing Firefox ESR updates reasonably timed for me. It contains valuable info on one of the top most used tools of the internet which cannot easily be found elsewhere. A.L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.203.150.40 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I work in Security and this page is an ESSENTIAL historical tracking record used to find when a specific version (usually found on an enterprise machine hidden from us somewhere) was released. I agree with a previous commenter who said it best: "It's not a change log, it is a verbose assessment which historically tracks the evolution of this browser. It is of historic value to users. I can see how it may be mistaken for a change log, but on scrutiny, it's much more elaborate than a simple change log. Also it's much more useful than a simple change log (which lacks the context that this article includes). To delete this page would only create a need to redo what must be a huge amount of organization, formatting and review. The page is very well done." gzigg —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A verbose assessment just appears to be another way to describe a change log. The most significantly historical updates could be summarised, however we certainly have no place for the entire history of versions, particularly when the content is already available from official Mozilla sources. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The iOS version history article is quite different. iOS versions are far more notable than versions of browsers, and iOS updates are always analyised in detail in numerous reliable sources. Perhaps this is why the iOS article contains much descriptive prose, rather than simply being a changelog.--Pontificalibus 07:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, if the current article, or the Firefox article can be both mirrored and then linked to wiki.mozilla.org, then why would there be any objections to deletion? It must be, therefore, against Wikipedia policy to affiliate with wiki.mozilla.org, otherwise will not the sentiment to preserve this article be moot? B'H. 172.114.234.68 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist had the comment Delete or merge?. Currently, I believe that consensus is leaning towards not deleting the article, so I ask: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Firefox and History of Firefox. Doesn't need a separate article but versions with significant coverage should be mentioned at appropriate articles. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 09:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pages such as this chronicle the evolution of fundamentally-important software without which Wikipedia itself could not exist. This page does not contain speculation, heresay, or unsubstantiated opionion; everything on this page is a matter of historical record. However, I agree that this article does not need to exist as a separate entity from the main History of Firefox page. It might even be optimally convenient if Firefox, History of Firefox and this article were ALL merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.12.27 (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bitter comment by nominator I guess we have to change WP:NOT to allow change logs, bus schedules, parts lists, and other miscellaneous information. ---Wtshymanski (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. For my needs: Either keep this article; or somehow have Wikipedia provide, or point to, at least 1 key item of Important Information (or at least the information is important to me, and probably many others). This must be verified on Wikipedia every time that Firefox issues a bug fix. The Important Info, and why: Firefox tells me that I'm not up to date, and says I should update. For me, the question is when I should update. I don't like to be on the bleeding edge of updating. Every once in a while, some important piece of software has a major problem that doesn't show up until lots of people have installed it. A recent example was the October 2018 update of Windows 10. If I wait for a bit, any serious problem with the update is much less likely to bother me. Therefore, I need the exact date of each release. Somewhere in their websites, Firefox or Mozilla probably provides the release date of each update; but it's so difficult to find that I go to this article in Wikipedia instead. I use this article every time Firefox tells me I'm not current. I'm a small user, reliant on Firefox. My skill level is probably better than the typical household or small-business user, but nowhere near as good as a real techie. Oaklandguy (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based reason to keep, because WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't going to cut it.--Pontificalibus 07:25, 8 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. czar 17:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Paramore

James M. Paramore (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 subject that fails WP:BASIC notability. Source searches are providing no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, the article is entirely dependent upon two primary sources and one unreliable source, which do not establish notability. North America1000 04:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norm. I can only find little about him. Tamsier (talk) 16:13, 26 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) 00:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global day

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

I can’t find any sources to support the claimed use of this term. While I imagine it probably exists, I’m doubtful whether it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Searching finds mostly false positives. No prejudice against later recreation if someone finds actual sourcing to support a full article on the existence and use of the term. Bakazaka (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches show more positives for Global Market Day but even that would be a WP:DICDEF without strong sources. (In addition, the example information in this unreferenced article is at best imprecise: London_Stock_Exchange#Opening_times does not agree that "The London business day starts at 9am and ends at 5pm".) Lack of evidence that this term is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be sourceable in quality book sources. Innovations in International and Cross-Cultural Management has substantial coverage of the topic over several pages. Using currency options more effectively also appears substantial, although I only have snippet view. Trading in the Global Currency Markets gives it a couple of paragraphs. Numerous other sources, while not in-depth, show that the concept is a common term-of-art in the sector. SpinningSpark 01:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thanks for tracking these down. The first looks like a substantial ref but the others are passing refs. As I said in my nomination I imagine the term exists but even seeing these refs does not leave me convinced the topic is notable enough for an article. Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mccapra: I don't agree that Trading in the Global Currency Markets is a passing mention. It talks about New York being the end of the global day and gives an historical reason; California failed in the 1980s to fill the gap between New York and Tokyo. This is a fact that could sensibly be added to the article. The rest of the section is discussing expected level of activity in different parts of the global day, so still on the same topic. It starts on page 117 and finishes on page 119, admittedly, the middle page is mostly charts, but it is still more than a trivial passing mention. I also found this paper "Time Scales and Organizational Theory" which is behind a paywall and I wouldn't bother the library to get it unless the article was definitely going to be kept, but this snippet
        "Circadian rhythms are particularly visible in global financial markets (Figure 2B), where the pattern of activity repeats itself every 24 hours, but only over the work week (the period of validity). The global “day” begins in New Zealand, just west of the International Date Line …"
which indicates there is non-trivial material there. SpinningSpark 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worked most of my life in capital markets and never head this term. Searched for it on google and could not find a reasonable reference. I am sure that there are some investment books that may have used the phrase, but this is not a defined term in capital markets (maybe why this article has no references). Britishfinance (talk) 21:10, 9 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rex D. Pinegar

Rex D. Pinegar (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 subject that does not meet WP:BASIC, as per WP:BEFORE source searches to determine the depth of coverage the subject has received in independent, reliable sources. Said searches are only providing minor passing mentions, name checks and quotations, none of which establish notability. No significant coverage appears to exist about the subject in said necessary sources. North America1000 04:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:27, 2 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 General authority. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Aldin Porter

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards to qualify for an article. Said searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and very little coverage in said sources at all. Those found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. Additionally, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources and one unreliable source, none of which establish notability. North America1000 03:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is not mentioned in General authority, but he is mentioned (as a list entry) in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus, so if redirect is the outcome I would recommend that article/section as the preferred target. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl C. Tingey

Earl C. Tingey (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)

After WP:BEFORE source searches, finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article per WP:BASIC notability standards. Independent sources are only providing passing mentions and name checks, along with quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. Searches for book reviews have provided no evidence that WP:AUTHOR is met. Furthermore the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, and one unreliable source, none of which confer notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). This one does not. Cited sources are either not independent (Mormon Times, Liahona, Ensign) or not reliable (self-published "Grampa Bill"). Even more remarkable is that the included sources, while not independent, are mostly just passing mentions in job change announcements, one of which was cited to support a claim it did not even discuss. The article is basically just the corporate bio from LDS public relations. Independent reliable sources don't offer much either, as the subject is mentioned in passing (spoke at an event, changed jobs) or quoted without critical analysis. None of it is significant coverage of this subject. Some LDS leaders pass WP:GNG. This one does not seem to pass. Open to reconsidering if significant coverage of this subject emerges in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 9 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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juice (American band)

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

Clearly far too under-sourced to meet WP:BAND. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear to pass any of WP:BAND criteria. Most available sources are non-independent interviews. Others aren't sufficiently reliable or focused enough on Juice. I don't believe the prize(s) they received was/were significant enough to satisfy criterion 9. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I agree that the sources here are coming up short--most of them either small time local, non-significant, first person, or in the case of the Journal Sentinel, purely of run-of-the-mill 'up-and-coming" profile variety in an otherwise reliable source. That said, having appeared on The Today Show--a major accomplishment--indicates there may be a certain notability achievement that simply isn't backed up with enough of the requisite WP reliable sources. In fairness, their name--"Juice"--is a broad term that makes google searches difficult. Possible WP:TOOSOON and no prejudice against recreation once they have accumulated enough sources to back up an article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What about criterion 12? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence my "weak" delete vote. It's the only thing so far that could kick this towards a keep, but being that it is only one criteria, and the dictum is "may be notable" when weighed against all factors, to me it still isn't quite enough. Especially when the appearance is put into context: the fourth hour of the show in a re-occurring segment where a DJ gets to showcase his monthly "deserves a bigger audience" choice of a heretofore unknown band. My sense is this band probably deserve a wikipedia page but, so far, there simply aren't enough significant third party sources to meet wiki criteria. But, as I stated, give them time. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found and added two more references, one a substantial profile in The South Bend Tribune, and the other a 9-sentence article and photo in The Boston Globe. There may be more - both the band name and some of the songs (Sugar) and the TV show are hard to search for, but with meeting WP:BAND #12 and having coverage in some RS and some less RS, I would say we have enough to keep the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:10, 26 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) 01:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grâce Lokole

Grâce Lokole (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)

Relatively minor Canadian basketball coach who doesn't appear to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 26 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. If the nominator is not satisfied by the E.M.Gregory's edits to the article, feel free to renominate this in few weeks or months. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard I. Winwood

Richard I. Winwood (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 subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC. The article is entirely dependent upon primary and unreliable sources. Source searches for coverage about the subject and for book reviews has not provided any significant coverage or independent reviews. North America1000 19:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's actually quite a lot of coverage of him: his career, companies he founded, millions he made, millions he lost. involved in a political donation brouhaha (or scandal). searching surname, full name with and without middle initial and surname plus various names of the several companies he has founded (at least 2 of which are bluelinked) would enable a diligent editor to improve Winwood's page and those of the companies. I did a little expand/sourcd. Lots more RS material exists, albeit archive searches help since he was active in the 90ss. Page as I found it was misleading, emphasizinging, as it did, his religious activities. WP:SIGCOV is of his business activities. Sources exist on his business, personal and religious life. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • added a couple of sources, but there is a great deal more available for a willing editor willing to read long profiles about how Winwood and Smith goth their starts in life and in business (Frenetic Franklin Quest Founder Has More Plans Than a Day Holds,John Keahey , The Salt Lake Tribune; Salt Lake City, Utah [Salt Lake City, Utah]13 Aug 1995: A.1.) , who made how many millions and when (DERKS FIELD IS OUT; FRANKLIN QUEST HOPES TO BE BIG HIT DERKS IS OUT; IT'S FRANKLIN QUEST FIELD,Chris Jorgensen, The Salt Lake Tribune; Salt Lake City, Utah [Salt Lake City, Utah]21 July 1993: B1. ) and so forth. Point is, the SIGCOOV is out there, page needs work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 30 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 Single-gender world#Female-only worlds. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping this article. Unfortunately that is where the consensus ends. This has been relisted twice w/o additional input so it's time to make a judgement call. I am going with what looks like the best merge target to my mind. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian utopia

Lesbian utopia (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)

It looks like a discussion of parthenogenesis possibilities in humans (or other female-only human reproductive possibilities) and a short version of the Single-gender_world#Female-only_worlds section. I don't think it's notable/verifiable enough to be a separate article from Single-gender world. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ New Sexual Violence Study Findings Have Been Reported from Southern Illinois University. (2011). Women's Health Weekly, 162.
  2. ^ Murphy, J. (1987). Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering. Off Our Backs, 17(2), 18.
  3. ^ Savona, J. (1996). Lesbians on the French stage: From homosexuality to Monique Wittig's lesbianization of the theatre. Modern Drama, 39(1), 132-155.
  4. ^ Stuart, J. (2006). In another bracket: Trans acceptance in lesbian utopia. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 10(1-2), 215-229.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:56, 2 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Building 64

Building 64 (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 has nothing in it that the main article should not, and appears to be centered on self-published work. Qwirkle (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Expanded below to address @MarnetteD:’s concerns: This has nothing in it that the main article Alcatraz Island should not, and appears to be centered on self-published work, “The fading voices of Alcatraz” from Authorhouse.Qwirkle (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Publishing, always an iffy source; Authorhouse, outright self-published; a...picture book (oddly, not so bad), and the Chronicle book, where we learn that “big guns” are “cannon”! (or is it vice versa? See figure 15. Doesn’t that drip authority?) Qwirkle (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the "find sources" search at the the top of the section. Lots and lots on this small building.--Moxy (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming majority I saw from the Google sites were for other buildings, and those I did see for this structure were closely connected with other larger subjects -the Island, the fort, the prison. (Of course, that’s a real weakness with Google; it tries to find the answers it thinks we want to hear based on search history, location, etc.) Qwirkle (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The two objections would be a merge proposal rather than a delete. Also very little WP:BEFORE seems to have taken place. MarnetteD|Talk 06:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I ran through the WP:BEFORE checklist completely, save the foreign versions. It does not appear to have independent notability, and it appears to be used promotionally. Were the self-published material removed, there would be nothing that isn’t already (rightly) in other articles, by the look of it.
That said, merging is always an option, although its ambiguous title might make that a problem later. Qwirkle (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, the main article is plenty big as it stands and splitting off items has been a benefit to it. Next, as Moxy has pointed out, there is info available to expand it. Finally, there is nothing about the article as it stands that is promotional. MarnetteD|Talk 07:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Moxy: could give some examples of encyclopedic content that her(IMS) searches have disclosed?
I would say that self-published content is generally promotional, gaining far more from Wiki that it bring to Wiki, and I do not see Champion’s book as an exception. Do you? Qwirkle (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the main article is too big assumes that this particular building merits significant bulky coverage that would overwhelm the main article. That is not the case. Just because one author has produced a work of love covering every building and open area on the site does not mean that each deserves their own articles. It is a perfect example of the tendency of Wikipedia to give inordinate attention to obscure and trivial detail. Alcatraz is a notable and noteworthy topic. There had better be some really special independent notability for Building Number Whatever on the site to have to have a standalone article rather than being adequately addressed with a single sentence or two in the main article, and I don't see it. (Basically, is the fact that it is on Alcatraz incidental to it being notable? If not, then it is not independently notable.) Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does removing this information help our readers? There is nothing egregious about the article.... Wikipedia:Does deletion help?.
First, I’d disagree there is nothing egregious about this article, unless you are contending that most Wiki articles are about subjects without independent notability sourced to self-published work.
How does this article harm the reader? Foremost, it misrepresents the importance of something. Wikipedia should reflect informed scholarship about what is notable, not create it. This building has no notability outside of the prison.
Also, it increases the volume of words a reader must chew through without increasing the amount of information the reader receives. If there is nothing significant here that isn’t, or shouldn’t be, in one of the potential parent articles, duplication of the same facts simply wastes reader’s time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:57, 2 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz Parade Grounds

Alcatraz Parade Grounds (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 appears to be mostly an ad for self-published works from Authorhouse, and contains nothing that should not be in the Alcatraz Island Article. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:44, 26 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) 00:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F. Michael Watson

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing very little coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no significant coverage in said sources appears to exist. The one independent source in the article only provides a three-sentence mention of the subject, which is not significant in depth, and the rest of the sources in the article are primary, which do not establish notability. Furthermore, from source searching, sources that provide quotations from the subject's speeches without almost any other information are primary in nature, and do not establish notability. North America1000 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:49, 2 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Home Rule

Citizens for Home Rule (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 entirely sure if the article passes muster for WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and may be a case of WP:NOBILITY GPL93 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I’ve also previously wondered about the notability of this article’s topic but per the comments above by other editors I concluded that it was sufficiently supported by refs. While local in scope, I think it’s notable enough to keep. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could use a little cleaning up, especially considering the majority of the references are deadlinks. Regardless, even after just a quick Google search it's evident that there is absolutely sufficient news coverage from a variety of independent sources to satisfy the criteria outlined at WP:ORG. [55][56][57][58] Omni Flames (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly meets WP:GNG, as well it had significant news coverage and sufficiently supported by well sourced refs as per other editors above. Sheldybett (talk) 11:00, 2 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 Alternative hip hop. RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental hip hop

AfDs for this article:
Experimental hip hop (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)

Renominated as the first nomination gave way to virtually no discussion whatsoever apart from a sock.
Misleading article almost completely devoid of sources. The primary basis for the page is an AllMusic entry describing a different subgenre. Aside from that, as it is, article is original research. Ascribe4 (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 26 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. It is not solid, but I am satisfied that a rough consensus exists to keep this. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheOdd1sOut

AfDs for this article:
TheOdd1sOut (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)

Was deleted in September and was endorsed at deletion review. The original AfD had some IP socking going on. I declined the draft in November for being substantially similar (I participated in the deletion review and the page looked very familiar.) It was moved out of draftspace by a new editor earlier today, I'm not sure if it was still at AfC or not from the history. I checked the diffs between the version which was moved and it was almost the same as the edition I declined at AfC. I tagged with a WP:G4 which was removed by Szzuk (talk · contribs) saying this needed to go to AfD. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think it qualifies for WP:G4. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with this being moved back to draftspace. It's definitely a speedy situation, though, because it's substantially similar to the version that was deleted only a couple months ago. Also, the Market Insider source is a press release, Culturess/Fansided is just a list, Slate is more about the author of the subject than the subject. I don't think notability is clear. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 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 01:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem good enough, and his videos can always be cited. unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to TheOdd1sOut as he is known more by his online name rather than his real name. As well, the original article was titled with his online name. Handoto (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The subject does meet notability guidelines, and the sources are good. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't commented on the sources/this passing WP:GNG since I nominated this as a technical WP:G4 deletion, but suffice to say I think WP:G4 still applies without any significant improvement to the sourcing that would get it past WP:GNG. I have no idea how you'd close this one, so good luck to the closer! SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the time that this was recreated it was certainly similar enough to the deleted version for a G4 speedy deletion. Now it is (just, in my view) different enough to warrant discussion at AfD, so I think whether or not it could have been deleted as a G4 is now moot. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Undid my closure per the nominator's request on the talk page that he wants this to be either relisted or closed by an administrator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have had a look at the sources here, and they do not seem to include substantive discussion of the subject in reliable independent verifiable published sources. References that show he is his mom's son (notability is not inherited), references to his high school newspaper, references to his twitter account, references to his Youtube channel ratings, and the occasional altogether dead link (iFunny and Crixeo— if this article had recently been genuinely rewritten, why are there dead links already?) do not paint a picture of real world notability. The "keep" votes would do well to point specifically at which sources they believe certify the subject as notable. I do not see them, and what I do see is much too thin to qualify. A loose noose (talk) 21:04, 2 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 Janakan. RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saji Paravoor

Saji Paravoor (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 GNG. Of the handful of articles I could find[64][65][66][67][68][69] all appear to be obituaries. The subject directed one film as far as I can tell. Even looking under his other name "Sanjeev N.R.", there are no significant hits. Since the article was created in March 2016, around when the subject died, it seems as though the article was created as a memorial, which is not what we should be doing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 26 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. No consensus for any action. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Keeley

Angelina Keeley (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 person. Fails WP:NBIO [70]. Only claim to fame is being on Survivor, which does not make you automatically notable. Also dubious sources such as another wiki. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added some references from outside sources. Greggens (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to say the same thing. Being on a reality show isn’t notability. There’s more to it than that. Trillfendi (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creator here -- many Survivor contestants have been classified as notable enough for pages. She was a major contestant (3rd place, most confessionals) and meets GNG. Longdashes (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability outside of Survivor, which is covered in the article. Spengouli (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced and person has coverage outside of Survivor. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:12, 30 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. Michig (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Foster

Cecil Foster (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 BLP with just one trivial ref. Google showing little I can find. Tagged for notability for over a year. Appears promotional. Szzuk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, the notability test for writers is not just the ability to technically verify that they and their work exist — it requires evidence of distinctions, such as winning a notable literary award and/or receiving enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. (And no, having been on the judging panel of a notable literary award is not a notability criterion.) But even on a ProQuest search for older media coverage that wouldn't Google, I wasn't able to find anything approaching what needs to be shown — I got a lot of hits where he was the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for, and virtually none where he was the subject of coverage written by other people, which is the kind of sourcing that's actually required. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an article about him from having to be referenced much better than this, but I simply can't find the kind of referencing he needs to have. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Biographical information here and here. Blackness and Modernity won the 2008 John Porter Award from the Canadian Sociological Association[71] and has reviews including [72][73][74][75]. Independence has reviews including [76][77]. Has reviews for other works. If a case can't be made for WP:NACADEMIC (Professor but not named chair; 122+48+45 cites[78]), then meets NAUTHOR. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of the "award-winning" criterion, we don't care about just any random award that exists — a literary award only makes its winners notable if the media care enough about that award to report its winners and nominees as news, and not if it can only be "referenced" to its own self-published website about itself. The existence or non-existence of journalism, in reliable sources, about the award is what tells us whether the award is notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Doesn't meet ANYBIO#1 or NBOOK#2, but is evidence against ACADEMIC#1 and #2 (according to this -- not necessarily unbiased, but expert -- it's the top award in Canada for a sociologist). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:17, 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 10:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added two newspapers profiles to the page. the problem, an unfortunately familiar one, is that Nom appears to have relied on a google search. However, when dealing with a writer who was publishing back in the 90s, it is necessary to look beyond a simple google search. More htan enough reviews found in my search to make this a keeper. Page needs a lot of work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 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 01:42, 26 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky Vimto

Cheeky Vimto (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 any notability or even that it exists. Probably a hoax or neologism: Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   07:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "neologism"? What evidence do you have that it's "probably a hoax"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All my searches yielded nothing except recursive mentions back to Wikipedia. Even the canned drink mentioned in the text makes no reference to the name of the article. I suspect that this is just someone's pet name for this or a similar drink.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying it's "probably a hoax or neologism" because you can't find any original sources other than this Wikipedia article? Could you show me how, for example, this source has "recursive mentions back to Wikipedia"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found two references in books which are sufficient for WP:GNG. I've added those to the article. There are additional book references to be found in Google book searches, but as I found most of them to be displayed only as "snippets," I've not added them as I haven't had a chance to retrieve the actual print books to review the references mentioned in the snippets. Still and all, there's enough there for general notability. Geoff | Who, me? 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Geoff. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 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. This article has been at AfD for three weeks. That's more than enough time for someone to make improvements. If somebody declares a firm intention to work on it, I would consider userfying. Drop me a line. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wheeler

AfDs for this article:
David A. Wheeler (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)

Notability concerns. The refs really don't say why this person passes WP:N. Before isn't showing anything better than the refs already there. This is the third nomination, the last being in 2008, and ending no consensus. It appears all the refs relate to the period around 2000-2008, I'm doubtful that if he was really notable he would basically disappear although it is possible. Szzuk (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 26 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) 16:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selebobo

Selebobo (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)

Notability not demonstrated, does not meet WP:MUS . PROD tag removed twice without substantial improvement. Mahveotm (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 26 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) 16:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candelas (band)

Candelas (band) (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 any notability. Nominated for a minor award and received a very minor award and nominated for an award at the National Eisteddfod doesn't make for notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   11:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis they're a very well-established Welsh band (almost unavoidable at Wales festivals at the moment). They won the best Welsh language band award in two of the first three years of the award's existence, and though this may be of no interest to non-Welsh speaking Wikipedia editors, the awards are reported by the BBC and the Wales national media, so clearly taken seriously. They also recorded the song Rhedeg i Paris to support the Wales football team at the 2016 European Championships. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Environmental Assessment and Solutions Inc.

American Environmental Assessment and Solutions Inc. (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 company. The article's references are non-independent or don't mention the company. A websearch turns up nothing much: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article creator is essentially a single purpose account and another contributor has an obvious username connection; the COI issues suggest this is merely self-promotion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion by a corporate account (user renamed after block). Small business with no history or sufficient coverage to assert notability. As indicated, this has no significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. -- Alexf(talk) 11:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingo Root

Kingo Root (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)

Reason: Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad. Mosaicberry (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a related software page with a condensed version of the content already posted. I find the CNET coverage particularly compelling when considering a keep vote. However, I performed rather intensive research with various search phrases and found very little coverage that would bring it past the general notability guideline . I do get the impression it is a legitimate freeware program, based on the coverage, just with capabilities that make it useful for whitehat and blackhat hackers. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 2 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 no consensus. As to whether to merge or to keep. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argument Web

Argument Web (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)

Struggling to establish WP:GNG. Can't find a reasonable list of significant quality sources independent of the subject. The very few that are around, are also dated (almost 5 years old). Doesn't seem like the concept/idea/website ever really took off, and now seems dormant. Britishfinance (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Michig: @Rubbish computer: These five academic source are effectivey the same authors from the "Argumentation Research Group (ARG), School of Computing, University of Dundee" (with Floris Bex from University of Groningen appearing in some; maybe he was in Dundee at some stage), in at 3 sources, it is the same core paper, where as in the other two sources, one is a 2-page draft (not a paper) by the ARG leader (Chris Reed) with University of Dubai, and the other is again Chris Reed and the core ARG, talking about applications of their main paper.
a. First source [85] author Chris Reed, Katarzyna Budzynska, Rory Duthie, Mathilde Janier, Barbara Konat, John Lawrence, Alison Pease, Mark Snaith
b. Second souce (their draft) [86] John Lawrende, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith
c. Third source [87] this is a 2-page draft by Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, Chris Reed (Universty of Dundee with University of Dubai)
d. Fourth source [88] (identical paper to first source by identical authors)
e. Fifth source [89] (same authors as second source)
The requirement is several significant independent sources – these are not independent, and some are not even significant. On this basis, almost every academic paper would qualify as a WP article. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and these: [90], [91], [92]?
  • Comment haven't time to go throuh all but the third one is from Part V Chapter 21 and if you check the contents you will see team members of the above papers appearing as the authors (e.g. Floris Bex, Chris Reed), and the section itself is also about the University of Dundee's Arvina (by Mark Snaith) and OVA (by Chris Reed) Arguement Web applications. Again, the University of Dundee ARG team writing about their own work – don't think that would pass independence? Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter has some of the Dundee staff listed among the authors, but mostly other people. The other two of these sources come from Brazillian authors. --Michig (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also coverage of Rahwan's ArgDF e.g. [93]. The Dubai group have collaborated with the Dundee group, but there appears to be at least three research groups working on this in three different countries. --Michig (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The list of authors at Part V Chapter 21 would have written individual sections of Chapter 21. The first two of the other references (11 and 12) are essentially the same source: Roberto Niche. I would need to check more as to whether Roberto was part of the ARG, but if not it would be a single independent source. I don't understand link with Rahwam's ArgDF (I can't see Arguement Web)? Previously, I felt that this was not only un-notable, but that the references had dried up. You have shown there is possibly one independent recent academic group that recognises the term? Not sure however if the case is still too contrived (i.e. I feel like we are stretching for this one), verus a clear case for notabilty. 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hiller

Bernard Hiller (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 was cleaning this up, but the moment you start cleaning the promotional crap out of an article like this, there's nothing left. There are no reliable sources, there are no real, verified achievements, even the filmography is questionable. So, remove per GNG--just another vanispam article, with heavy COI edits by a now-blocked person whose name is an awful lot like that of the subject. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bernie Hiller has undoubtedly some influence as an acting coach. The documentary 'Pink Elephants' is about him and his work. And he was in some festival jurys. In my eyes, that makes him a relevant person. Sure, the article was pure advertising, but now it's better. The sources are o.k. and there is a criticism-section, too. As far as I know, Pink Elephants is only available in german. But at the latest when there are english subtitles in this documentary, people are asking for a Wikipedia article. Django.Muerte (talk) 23:15, 19 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, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This conversation was reopened by request from an uninvolved user. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 13:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Praxidicae in a discussion on my talk page, this needs more discussion before closing. (Non-administrator comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. The "Filmography" section is sourced with IMDb (user-generated) that is not reliable or acceptable as a reference. Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is still so promitionally written. There are some references in RS, but media-BLPs throw up refences quickly (by definition from their industry). There is no proper article on the subject (as opposed to referring to him in the context of another subject) in a significant RS (e.g. NYT interview). A notable acting coach, given the industry, would have at least one strong interview in a major publication. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 15 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 no consensus. If the nominator is not satisfied with the 3 sources posted by Karl Twist, feel free to renominate this in few weeks or months. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ansill

Jay Ansill (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources, except for this article in Philadelphia City Paper, a now defunct alternative local. This musician is mentioned often in one-liners such as "Jay Ansill is an accomplished Celtic and Folk composer and musician", but not much more. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Karl Twist, if you could find this review, that may be helpful. Otherwise, though, having an album on a notable label does not in and of itself grant an artist notability. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:02, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimoh Waxiu

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

Aside from the fact that the creator of this article is currently blocked for susppected sockpuppetry, I've reviewed the article (including the references online), and there is nothing indicating that the subject is a major player in the Nigerian music scene, neither do the reliable references independently cover him in sufficient detail. One of his songs is notable to have its own Wikipedia article, but having a single notable song does not translate to the musician being notable. Fails MUSICBIO. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially no significant coverage in publications that are NOT just announcements of his new single, or 'he will be playing at XYZ Hall' - type press releases. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Considering the fact that this is a mere WP:STUB and per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NOPAGE i think this article should be allowed to remain a STUB, according to the nominator at AFD if one of his song is notable to have it own article why not leave it the way it has been merged into the current article, yet again article subject has passed some of the criterion highlighted in WP:NMUSIC - criterion 11, 8, 4, 2 atleast this is enough to ascertain notability, we should also understand that WP:BIAS is a bug and not a feature.
    • NOTE TO THE NOMINATOR: Also understand that the said artist is not only a Nigeria based artist, but was initially signed to a South African based record label which he played the role of a music producer ('Galaxy Beat') and as a singer-songwriter, hence you cannot tell us you know all the the Nigerian artist on the encyclopedia as major players, the same artist per the sources available has performed in concert in SA as well as been on radio and TV rotations.DFrasier (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. A mention of him in The Nation newspaper shows that he is an up and coming artist who has not establish himself in the Nigerian music industry.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Lange (Nazi persecutee)

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

Declined PROD. This is a tragic story, but I don't think it makes him notable. There is some coverage in RS (an extremely brief biography on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website and a mention in a NYT article about the USHMM), but that fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SIGCOV. buidhe 00:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:46, 26 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 Confident (album). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Come (Demi Lovato song)

Kingdom Come (Demi Lovato 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)

Track fails WP:Notability (music)#Songs (WP:NSONGS). There's nothing outside of album reviews or artist commentary from any legitimate secondary sources covering this song. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with artists (and sources that largely if not entirely rehash comments from those) don't count for the required significant coverage outside album reviews as artist commentary on tracks is just self promotion. With that in mind, Spin and perhaps Seventeen meet the requirements, though I'm not as sure about Huffington Post when it's rehashing Spin. Rap-Up on the other hand only has a brief paragraph and isn't enough by itself. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've struck my keep vote in favour of supporting redirection, just to be in line with the consensus that has formed here. The little coverage obtained through the sources I listed can be contained on the album article.--NØ 08:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Confident (album). An album track which charted on a minor chart with some reviews. Not notable enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Lack of third party sourcing providing significant coverage. Most of the sourcing is either passing mentions or first party quotes. Additionally, there’s very content present anyways - it’s not much more than credits transcribed into prose, that is better outline within the context of its respective album. I mean, read the background section. It’s short, and half of it’s consists of an unnecessary lengthy direct quote that could easily paraphrased into something to the capacity of “She asked someone to contribute to the song and they said yes.” There’s a lack of sourcing and content here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- I know the article needs to be expanded but the song was charted and there is coverage outside of album reviews about the song, as mentioned above. Harut111 (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charts (or lack thereof) are entirely moot. As for the linked URLs above, I guess at this point it comes down to whether one really counts Seventeen as having enough depth. Spin is fine, though everything else (other than the brief paragraph from Rap-Up) is either based on artist commentary or rehashing what other people wrote. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if interviews with the artist don't count towards notability (which is questionable), once a separate source reports on the interview or information from the interview there is no reason to exclude that now secondary source of the interview from contributing towards notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 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) 22:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Confident (album). Coverage of the album doesn't count towards notability of the song. It is covered in Billboard and in Spin [94] that says it has the worst rap verse of 2015 (not a surprise the editor left it out). Aside from announcements (typically not notable), no other real significant coverage (the Huffington Post one is also just a rehash of the Spin article), a minor placing in a minor chart also does not add to notability, only two true sources would fail WP:NSONG. Hzh (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 26 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) 01:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bryant (lyricist)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. A previous speedy deletion request was declined, and a PROD contested, so an AfD discussion is the only route here. The subject's fame, if any, rests entirely on his association as a writer of the lyrics on some of the songs on Howard Jones' 1984 debut album Human's Lib. After his split with Jones, Mr. Bryant had a long musical partnership with another local (and non-notable) songwriter, Paul Linn – the text of this article appears to be a WP:COPYVIO of the biography on Mr. Linn's website [95] with backup from Mr. Bryant's own website [96]. There don't appear to be any independent reliable sources that discuss Mr. Bryant in detail, either as a songwriter or as a spiritual advisor, which appears to be his main career. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from talk page of this AfD) Is the challenge concerned with the content following the split with Howard Jones and having written the lyrics on a UK No 1 selling album? The content that describes the relationship between Bill Bryant and Paul Linn, gleaned from their respective web sites? Or the whole article? Johntason (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please voice your opinions on the discussion page, not this talk page, as most people will not see them here – the problem is that there are no independent reliable sources that show Mr. Bryant's notability. Richard3120 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. What about the reference to Helen Fitzgerald's book and the Humans Lib album credits? Johntason (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book is the only reliable source listed, and multiple independent sources are required to verify notability. The album credits only prove that Mr. Bryant co-wrote some of the songs, and provide no other information about him – if songwriting credits proved notability, then everybody who has ever written a recorded song would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 26 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_26&oldid=880337563"