Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 January	24 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada

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

This was a bit of a messy situation last year, that ended up in a very muddled lack of consensus, but it's been over six months since the last discussion so it's probably safe to take another swing at it. The first two discussions were perhaps a bit premature in hindsight, because they were initiated while some of the concurrent AFD discussions on the other five housing cooperatives that used to be in this list were still open, so they foundered on the question of just how many cooperatives needed to have articles to justify a list of them while illogically ignoring the fact that all but one of the articles were irreversibly strapped onto a speeding train into the garbage can — however, all of the ones that got nominated for deletion did finally get deleted, turning this into a list of just one thing.
The third discussion took place after the list had been pruned to a singularity, conversely, but then the only editor who was actually still arguing for a keep anymore started trying to convert the list into a comprehensive directory of every single housing cooperative that exists in Canada, regardless of whether it has a Wikipedia article to link to or not, and referencing each entry only to its own self-published website rather than to any reliably sourced evidence of their notability — so the nominator of the third discussion simply withdrew their nomination entirely, even though the balance was still tilting 2-1 toward deletion.
However, talk page consensus came down unanimously against turning the page into an indiscriminate directory list of all housing cooperatives, and instead solidly supported applying the "only cooperatives that have Wikipedia articles to link to" restriction per WP:CSC #1 — thus turning it right back into a list of just one thing again. So it's a list that simply isn't serving a purpose anymore, because a list of one thing isn't a useful list. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now that it's down to a lone entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a single-item list, or, in some previous incarnations, per WP:NOTDIR.--Pontificalibus 09:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single entry list, no longer serves any purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Honestly, i dont think this is really important enough to be here. PlotHelpful (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., The title says list but there is no list , Alex-h (talk) 23:11, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athos M. Amorím

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

As per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Furthermore, the article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence that the subject is notable and no assertions in the article that he is either. It tells us he was born, got married, served in the army and got a degree. I can't see how that warrants inclusion in an encyclopaedia. And even those claims aren't adequately sourced! Pupsbunch (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Golden Land Myanmar

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

Admittedly my understanding of pageant notability isn't great but this doesn't appear to be a qualifier for anything notable nor is there much in the way of independent or significant coverage Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find decent non-primary sources on this event; the article seems to have been created by cut-and-pasting the much older wikipedia article, Miss Universe Myanmar. The other Mynmar pagents such as Miss Universe Myanmar yield a lot of good quality, and recent, press coverage (e.g. mmtimes.com). Given the persistence of the multiple editors on the related article, Wai Yan Aung, this will need salting. Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Yan Aung

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

this person is not independently notable and the creator keeps re-spamming, so nominating for full deletion and then redirect to Miss Golden Land Myanmar Praxidicae (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a COI issue with this editor who also created the linked article, Miss Golden Land Myanmar. Text is very promotional. Can't see any reference to this subject outside of founding the beauty pagent; not sure if the pagent article would also pass notability. Britishfinance (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the pageant as well but it's one of those niche areas of notability on Wikipedia that I'd rather stick myself in the eye with a fork than delve into. Praxidicae (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :) Britishfinance (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just stuck a fork in my eye. :( Praxidicae (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, no evidence that the subject is noteworthy or of public interest. Pupsbunch (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Jones (disambiguation)

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

Speedy suggested - does not even meet {{Two-dabs}} criteria - don't understand why this exists. I am inexperienced in AfD, and was unsure whether to bundle the two redirects with bogus targets. The first only links to a 2018 TV show/competition where there are 3x black text table entry for (non-notable) "Chloe Jones", requiring browser Ctrl+f search to see quickly. The second redlink is to a normally-unseen, collapsible list where there is one entry for (non-notable) "Chloe Jones" as a one-time goal scorer in a 2011 football match. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the required template to the nominated article page. WP:AFDHOWTO explains the process, for future reference. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThY, Bakazaka - I had about six tabs open following the stages, and thought I had done as req'd, but must have failed to save the page.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. I deleted a lot of the entries, but there are still three left (marginal but still), four if you count the song. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all entries are legitimate dab page entries and might help a reader. PamD 18:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION or having an article - all valid. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate M. Barker

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

As per source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Finding no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage at all in said sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author) Members of the general relief society are clearly notable enough to keep their articles. In the event this does not win concensus at a minimum the article should ve merged with the article on her notable husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every LDS woman who is over 18 or married or has a child is technically a member of the Relief Society, so saying that membership is a basis for notability strains credulity. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I meant is members of the general relief society presidency. I tire of the itentionally rude natirwe of so much of these comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding "Members of the general relief society are clearly notable enough", there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on Wikipedia. The !vote appears to be opinion-based, rather than based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? Said necessary sources do not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why should I. When I provide more than two ideependent sources you then find ways to move the rules in some other way as we saw in the discussion on Benjamin de Hoyos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well then, don't; no rule changing here, or there, or anywhere by me. Notability for such subjects simply requires two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, that's it. If said sources don't exist, then the subject is just not notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent coverage independent of the religious organization she served. As Northamerica1000 notes correctly, notability is not presumed for religious subjects. The rules do not move: they've been at WP:BIO this whole time. This article does not meet the burden laid out there. Lagrange 613 10:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a pity as these are well constructed articles, however there is nothing outside of LDS Church sources. More appropriate for a seperate LDS Church Wiki? Britishfinance (talk) 11:02, 14 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 extended time for review. bd2412 T 16:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G.N.P.C.

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

trivial article on trivial group; the material I can read does not indicate significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article is at best trivial. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to further my argument by saying that there are several unsourced claims in the article and that I cannot verify the reliability of some of the exisiting sources, so as of now my vote is still delete. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which the "several" unsourced claims are. Every single line in the article has a newspaper reference. The only unreferenced one is the Guinness record (I was the one who added the "citation needed" tag there), and that is because it is a stupid claim from the group. How is Guinness going to count comments in a secret group? In spite of this, newspapers have once again claimed this to be an unofficial record (Examples 1 2). It is unfortunate that you say that you cannot verify the reliability of some of the sources. I can understand if you don't speak Malayalam, but surely you at least know that Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi etc. are leading mainstream Malayalam newspapers? -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are all the newspapers which have had coverage about the group and its troubles with the Police:
- Malayalam Newspapers of Kerala state: Malayala Manorama (1 2 3), Mathrubhumi (4 5 6), Madhyamam (7 8), Mangalam (9, 10 11), Deshabhimani (12, 13), Kerala Kaumudi (14), Asianet News (15 - tag with a dozen articles), Kairali news (16), News 18 Malayalam (17). That is pretty much every major news outlet. There are many other news items from the same sources and from "lesser" outlets that I have not listed.
- National news outlets: Deccan Herald (18), The Hindu (19, 20), The New Indian Express (21, 22), Deccan Chronicle (23), Times of India (24, 25). Obviously the number and amount of coverage is less than in the state newspapers, but that is expected. You cannot say that you will only consider English language news sources.

Sure, it is a silly group but that is not the point. When the state excise and police departments of Kerala start investigations against a group and gives it massive news coverage, I believe that gives it notability - I have specified this in the lead now. In any case, deciding notability like that is very subjective. I think the fact that every news outlet of Kerala has covered the group over months and even National newspapers have had coverage (all links shared above are articles specifically about the group) makes it satisfy the general notability guideline -- Raziman T V (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A WP:WEBCRIT pass, as per a source review, from the sources I can read and some that I was able to translate online. Significant coverage in multiple, independent and reliable sources = notability. Subjective personal assessments of the content as "trivial" does not reduce the notability of topics that have received such coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 30 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) 03:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not particularly well written article but lots of material independent RS on this group. The effect of social media in countries with a high level of media supression/control is very interesting; when the local media also report on these sites, you know that something material is happening. Britishfinance (talk) 11:08, 14 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. Sandstein 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy F. Evans

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing absolutely no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hardly any coverage at all. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. At a minimum it should be merged with the article on her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence she is noteworthy or of public interest and the three sources cited - of her her website obituary and church newsletters - do not support he notion she warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia Pupsbunch (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage independent of the religious organizations in which she served. Appropriately sourced content from this article (or anywhere else) having bearing on her husband's biography can be included in his article, but a merge would be inappropriate. As a side note, her husband's article has been tagged as potentially failing WP:BIO, so this may soon be moot. Lagrange 613 10:38, 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. With only a small number of people arguing to keep, the outcome is obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small number

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

What a weird piece of original research, 100% unreferenced for sooooo many years. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, stamp out, obliterate. This is not a math term. Also delete the related, equally nonsensical, but much more elaborate Large numbers. Then possibly redirect to Names of small numbers and Names of large numbers, respectively? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nuke it from orbit. So much WP:OR. Something should be the redirect target; Law of small numbers is also an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What exactly and objectively makes a number "small"? I don't think this can be reasonably answered without violating WP:NPOV (or introducing even more WP:OR), and a page describing various opinions on small numbers would constitute a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly and objectively makes a number "large"? StrayBolt (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic; which is impossible to be encyclopedic. Per all above.∯WBG^converse 16:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the fence re Large numbers, but this one is a bit silly and a lot arbitrary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst Large number is clearly legit and has a lot of pageviews, I find no sources to indicate this is a notable term, nor any appropriate target to redirect it to. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usage of "small numbers" is debatable and definition subject to abuse[1], there are several classes that arise, like for large numbers. First come from small number statistics or Strong Law of Small Numbers which place it in the positive integers from 1 to 100, countable from the human sense. The second set would be from science and technology, numbers with negative powers of 10 exponents, from -1 to -100. Third is the mathematical theory realm with (ε, δ)-definition of limit and infinitesimals. StrayBolt (talk) 00:51, 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. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald Rabbinical family

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

No claim to any notability and no evidence of any notability. The single source is a self made family tree with the same reliability as a blog. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Category:Greenwald Rabbinical family or Category:Greenwald Rabbis. --תנא קמא (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical project. Notability difficult to verify. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possibly quite notable, though I would like to see sources discussing them as a set (many of the individuals, also those redlinked, are clearly notable and have entries in other wikis). At the very least, some of the content should be merged to Greenwald (currently missing some of our own blue links, and a comment there on the rabbai line is due - to help our poor readers when they see a rebe Greenwald (which may refer to quite a few different rebes)).Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Icewhiz in the following sense that although the family tree is itself not notable, and is already partly present in Moshe Greenwald, those names that have an article should be merged into Greenwald. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability of the family as a whole. Useful content besides the family tree itself can be merged. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine L. Jack

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; only very brief quotations and name checks. The article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep borderline notability. Wikipedia has an article for each and every microrabbi. Leadership of other religions are just as notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing notability upon? There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is the bare minimum to establish notability for such subjects, per Wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I have to say that I find it ridiculous that a sportsman who played for ten minutes during one game in their career is considered notable, or who competed at the Olympics - and before anyone says this is impressive, let me remind you of Eddie the Eagle and Eric Moussambani - while they are sufficiently notable on their own merit for Wikipedia Articles, that doesn't mean that people who are not quite so bad as them are too. In any case, accomplishing something impressive is not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have articles on most people with a PhD. With that said, under the current criteria this ladies position in the LDS is insufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia, despite being more notable than many included but minor athletes, and thus my vote, in line with current policy. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Keep, based on newly provided sources. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified multiple additional sources. Jill Mulvay Derr and others Women of the Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society provides significant information, as does Canadian Mormons and Women at the Pulpit. That is 3 books with significant mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Keep Of the three books named above, there is significant coverage in the two books I can see on Google Books, which is the bare minimum needed, and I will WP:AGF that the third also has SIGCOV. Also, as well as information about roles and the dates at which the subject assumed them, etc, there is information about changes in policy and practice during the subject's leadership, so it is clear that there are achievements she is notable for, not just roles she held.

It is not true to say that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia - they may be essays rather than guidelines, but in my observation, WP:NBISHOP and WP:BISHOPS are generally followed at AfDs. WP:RELIG/N also notes that "Many international religions have their own or strongly affiliated publishing houses. This makes determining independence difficult at times." Two Protestant and two Catholic publications/publishers are identified as "considered independent" (though it doesn't say how), but it doesn't specifically identify any which are considered not independent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:15, 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. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie D. Parkin

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations and name checks; WP:BEFORE searches have provided no significant coverage at all. Furthermore, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence the subject is noteworthy or of public interest and no sources to illustrate why she should be in an encyclopaedia. If there is a list of general presidents of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then her name should be recorded on it, but she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page to herself. Pupsbunch (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 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. Sandstein 10:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen H. Hughes

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage in said sources at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There's a move afoot to delete many of the lesser Latter-day Saint leadership, which doesn't bother me too much, but it would be a mistake to delete Hughes. Prior to her work for the Church, she was a significant leader in education. Perhaps that section of the article needs to be built up more, but it's not a matter of insufficient resources being available. Thmazing (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is what's needed to qualify notability. Said necessary sources do not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should not be deleted. If we can not find enough sources to justify a stand alone article we should merge it with the article on her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence the subject is noteworthy or of public interest and no sources to illustrate why she should be in an encyclopaedia. If there is a list of counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then her name should be recorded on it, but she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page to herself. Pupsbunch (talk) 21:06, 29 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) 03:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 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. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole M. Stephens

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

A non-notable subject that qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The article itself is mostly dependent upon primary sources, with five out of the seven sources being so. Per WP:BEFORE searches, remaining coverage in independent, reliable sources is is limited to routine announcements about the subject's becoming a general board member of the Relief Society of the LDS church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yingcharoen F.C.

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability. Yingcharoen F.C. has not played in a national league, the leagues given are all regional, and the club has not played in the Thai FA Cup. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has TV coverage on national channels Nation TV[2] and TNN24.[3] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:GiantSnowman. Deb (talk) 15:55, 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) 03:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raguluthunna Bharatham

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

A non-notable film that does continues to not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this film, nor any reviews in said required sources. The sole keep !vote in the previous AfD discussion stated, "looks like there are more Indian sources to add, article is not unduly promotional." However, in a later comment, the user then stated, "... so, I was wrong, it doesn't look like it's covered more in Indian sources after all." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--> NFILM has technically boiled down to allotting an article for every film that has got 2 or more reviews across reliable source(s). I do not personally agree with this interpretation and IMHO, we are not competing with IMDB. But that's a story for another day and for now, I will apply the same standards to this film. Running an online-search for sources, we cannot lay our hands on anything. But the broader question is whether is it realistic to expect online reviews of a 92' film or to assume that all Tamil dailies of 92 have been digitized or rational to search for coverage in net-era-publications ( how many films produced this year (with a plethora of hype) will be any mentioned across RS(s) 20 years later?). The film starred two legendary actors and the music was directed by a highly acclaimed artist. In light of that, it's plainly crazy to assume that such a film vanished without making any buzz; flop or not. Systemic Bias and all that.∯WBG^converse 17:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaniWeb

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

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

del no independen evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search yielded a small amount of coverage about a data breach in 2015, but everything else was forum posts or Facebook-type pages directly connected with the company. – Teratix ₵ 13:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersword

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of two articles, and the character appears seven times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T or List of Iron Man enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - character lists are meant to be a central location for short summaries of characters who are important in a fiction, but not outside of it. This character has two incoming links from non-list articles, so he's clearly not that notable in the Marvel universe. Neither of those articles provide enough information to make a redirect practical. Nothing would be lost by deleting the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Argento Surfer, whose opinion I agree with. Belongs in Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 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 no consensus. If the nominator is not satisfied with the posted sources, feel free to renominate again after few weeks or months. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosco McGlashan

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

While the article has some sources, it appears to lack any notable coverage, with any notable coverage being primarily focused on the car instead of the individual in question.

As such, I am hoping to receive outside input on the notability of this article, and also air the possibility of rather than an outright delete the relevant content is transferred to an article about the various "Aussie Invader's" NoCOBOL (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a WP:COATRACK article, about the Aussie Invader vehicles and their land speed reccord attempts. Some content has been pasted from this non-free source, which needs clearing out or rewriting. I would need more time to assess whether either subject actually meets our notability requirements. Nick Moyes (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form: There's enough sigcov for an article (eg: [4][5][6][7]). If you are stuck with one article, then one way or another you'll end up with something that may look a little coatrack. His notability is in leading the building and racing of vehicles, and stories about the vehicles focus on him in that role. Consider a counterfactual: What if his vehicles all had totally different names, and there were no common company? Conversely, his go-kart record and OAM and perhaps other things are noteworthy, so if the article pivots to one on the vehicles, then a chunk of biographical information should be included. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:38, 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 speedy keep. No rationale for deletion has been presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

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

Zeus 19:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Totally senseless nomination. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAGAkids incident

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

This page may now be at 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered at Indigenous Peoples March#Incident with MAGAkids. There is no actual incident here, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DELAY. Completely routine he said-she said, except there isn't any crime alleged. One could make the argument that it's noteworthy that tabloids printed garbage coverage of the event, but that's also completely typical and WP:ROUTINE. Notice how that policy includes "tabloid journalism". Also, since all of these "opinion" articles at respectable outlets were published solely for profit, they should be discounted here. I think everyone can agree here that this is just another Trump-related news cycle with zero lasting impact on anything. There might even be in-depth coverage from people who have been respected in the past, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, of which there likely won't be any. Note that countless Trump-related "incidents" were deleted in the past, and a couple were similarly related to insignificant school kids. wumbolo ^^^ 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, minimum merge Granted, we should have waited to create this, but we're 5 days out and the story is still drawing significant headlines. It's a two-part story, one about the event, and the other about how the media are reacting to the event, with both stories feeding themselves back and forth (eg just now criticism related to a interview with the spotlighted student causing more media stirring). I do think that some of the reactions can be cut down (I edited some of this yesterday to try to add objective event pinpoints to help guide how the reaction section should be driven) -there's still tons of reactions, everyone's brother having their word towards it, and we shoudln't have these all. But that should wait until after the event has died out from headline news, so we can figure the right perspective. Also I would argue that the headline is not POV compliant (even if that's common phrasing by reporting), it should be something like "2019 Indigenous Peoples March event", and potentially considered merged back to the March page if this ends up short enough. --Masem (t) 18:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, decide if it needs its own article later. Also, I've renamed it to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident for now, since the previous name was chosen with no discussion, doesn't seem to appear in any sources, failed WP:NPOV (it appears to be a hashtag some people are trying to push, but not one that has gotten enough coverage to even be mentioned in mainstream sources, let alone reaching WP:COMMONNAME. Strong delete for anything under the old title - that name refers to a non-notable hashtag, and we clearly lack the sources to write an article about the hashtag, nor is there any reason to think they'll ever exist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. While the article name could be up for discussion, a bright light is not needed to see that this is an event of the highest iconicity. One wonders how the nominator could in a case this rare even think of WP:ROUTINE, let alone wanting the subject to get only some attention in an article on a subject to which it is only related by coincidence. This nomination does not convince me, on the contrary: I get the impression of someone wanting to silence a subject for no reason but personal unease. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Jürgen Eissink: please don't speculate on the motivations of other editors. Comments on AFDs should be limited to policy-based arguments on the article, not other editors. See WP:AFDEQ and WP:DISCUSSAFD. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point, and thank you for that, but please notice that nominator sets the standard with "I think everyone can agree here", which is no less speculation than me giving my impression. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but reevaluate later. While WP:ROUTINE does state tabloid journalism isn't considered noteworthy, I will have to disagree with you that this incident will be treated as a fad and that this is not simply "tabloid journalism", though I do think caution should be exercised when editing this article. None of us can conclusively claim this incident will have zero lasting impact when the media is still actively reporting on this. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE clearly states these events " may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Unlike other Trump-related incidents, this one seems unique in the fallout that has occurred, especially in regards to the threats of bodily harm and even death directed at children by celebrities. Neither do I believe this incident should simply be redirected to Indigenous Peoples March#Incident with MAGAkids. At the very least, the incident should be considered a case study in sensationalism, but we should wait for the dust to settle before pushing to have this article deleted. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Keep – I think the above option is better, but I have no prejudice against a merge. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I have since revised my initial opinion on this matter and believe this incident is deserving of its own article. The fact is this event happened when three separate groups - March for Life, Indigenous Peoples March, and the Black Israelite group - all came together and this incident occurred. To say this event should be merged as a subset of the Indigenous Peoples March page to me goes against WP:UNDUE because it would downplay this event's notability. Most people's interest in this matter seems to comes from the incident itself, not that it occurred in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples March. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Current events are always a tough call, and there's good-faith disagreement over how NOTNEWS should be applied. In this case, noteworthiness doesn't depend on tabloid coverage; the incident has received substantial, international, non-opinion reporting and analysis from respected mainstream sources. Since editors seem interested in writing about the topic, we can use this as an opportunity to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Masem best described in their !vote above this event is still attracting a fair share of coverage and is still very much a current event, so it is simply too soon to say, although I must say that I think this article at the moment still passes the notability guidelines described in WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. As other !votes have stated above (if the article is kept) I would not be opposed to a future discussion to merge in a month or two time. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Indigenous Peoples March for now. This is a controversy that erupted at that event, the Native American / indigenous context is important, and I think it would be well-covered there. I also think we might consider a more general article on viral videos of this type that show people with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways - the bullying of Latino/a students to "Build the Wall" in late 2016 comes to mind.--Pharos (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... viral videos of this type that show people [kids] with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways" — with a bias like this I suggest you stay away from this subject. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday trying to guess which bias you assumed I had, though with your other edits I think I know now. I think our language difference might be a partial cause - "people" does not mean adults and "apparently" means by appearance, not necessarily in fact. My point was that this is more or less a genre of viral video now, whether warranted or not in any individual instance. This is why we have WP:AGF, which you seem to be ignoring quite regularly on this page.--Pharos (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the first footage that emerged, to me it was clear that those kids were being kids, dancing to an approaching drum. Their outfit to me was irrelevant. You approach the subject from the Trump symbol side, which to me is secondary. Your first opinion, apparently, is that the group appeared to behave in a bigoted way, something which never came to my mind. Maybe my reply was too strong, but I think it would be fair to also Assume Good Faith on the schoolboys' behaviour to start with, which you obviously could not. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Before the edit conflict I was saying “MAGAkids” is a ridiculous title. They are Covington Catholic school students. If anything it should be renamed and merged. Trillfendi (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: the article has already been moved to a new title, its just that the article was nominated for deletion under the old title hence the reason why the old title is the one that shows up in the nomination page. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- "Already mentioned briefly at another article" is not a good reason to delete a lengthy and well sourced article on a notable-in-itself topic. As the guy who boldly forked the article from Indigenous Peoples March in the first place, I did so based on attempts to discuss on the talk page first and also based on the fact that the crux of the incident did not actually occur during the IPM or in conjunction with the IPM. I think the topic is clearly notable based on mainstream media coverage (19 million ghits for Covington Catholic Incident), and I think its notability derives from the clash and subsequent culture war implications rather than from the Indigenous Peoples March. The event is "already covered" not only by the Indigenous People's March, but also by the March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, Black Hebrew Israelites, and other wikipedia articles. The IPM article was bloated with incident specific details / reactions unrelated to the planning and conduct of the Indigenous People's March. Merging to any one of these articles (Indigenous People's March, March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, or Black Hebrew Israelites) would bloat it up with incident specific details and media interpretations at the expense of otherwise distinct and clear articles. This is a textbook Recentism editor disagreement, since some people think it is obviously notable and others think it is a news blip. In any case, it is incontrovertably attracting a lot of buzz on we won't know whether it will stick... but in the mean time there is a lot of reliable source coverage trying to dissect what exactly happened -- something that Wikipedia is extremely good at assimilating. Again, refer to WP:RECENT for some thoughts on what to do in this case. I am not committed to the name, but I could not think of a better one that maintained WP:NPOV. Peace and WikiLove, MPS (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Main stream coverage is continuing with further interviews, responses and in-depth analyses. It is notable and has had significant coverage evidenced in the 49 full RS references with heavy use of inline citations in this article. I had created the Indigenous Peoples March article and the section entitled "Incident" which was copied and pasted to begin this article. The March itself is notable, although media coverage of it was lamentably lacking. I could see with the amount of coverage the incident was getting, both via social media and in the main stream press, that this section would have to eventually be forked. A January 20, 2019 New York Times article described the incident as an "explosive convergence of race, religion and ideological beliefs — against a national backdrop of political tension... The encounter became the latest touch point for racial and political tensions in America], with diverging views about what really had happened." Major news outlets continue to publishing series of articles and news broadcasts investigating angles of the story in terms of the role of social media itself, cultural intersections, US political polarization, etc. Social media is still alight with it. The use of Storyful and other social media intelligence agencies is in itself an interesting aspect of this story. I strongly oppose the original title MAGA kids as it is biased and disrespectful. If the decision is made to delete this article, I strongly recommend that the content be merged back into the Indigenous Peoples March.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So it sounds like Oceanflynn, the creator of the Indiginous Peoples Day article, is agreeing that the "incident" article is also separately notable, and I, the creator of the forked MAGAkids article, agree that the name is not great (it was not even my first choice, but I was trying to keep participants' proper names out of it so as to maintain NPOV. As I said above "I am not committed to the name" but I think the topic is notable whatever we decide to call it. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge the article, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It does not seem notable enough to have its own article; Frankly, I'd opine it wasn't even notable enough to be mentioned on current events. However, given the coverage, it merits a mention on a parent article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Indigenous Peoples March for now because the article on the Indigenous Peoples March only covers this one day event and the vast majority of the media coverage for the march covered or mentioned this incident. This incident seems to provide a large part of that article's notability at this point. This new page seems to be largely a duplication of an existing article. The existing ariticle is not large at this point so seems no justification in splitting it at this point. DynaGirl (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to parent article. Yes, mainstream media is still covering this, but that does not always mean it is notable. Also, there has been much hearsay, lies, and confusion in the coverage of this story.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hearsay, the lies and the confusion make up this story and it is pretty much what makes the story notable. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- That is true, but was it notable enough to be it's own page? I think it would be fine merged. Of course, I'm not an admin.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It probably partly depends on the final name for the AIM Song MAGA Drum Encounter and the description of occurences, but I think the event will retain significance as an example of American culture. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Incident has received attention world wide. And sparkee discussions. Article sourced and the sources are good. I see no point in merging this as it contains info that is not available at the other article. This is whether we like it or not an event that has reached international level.BabbaQ (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldwide attention, ongoing analysis in mainstream sources. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, but this is not routine news, but a singular event which has provoked significant thought and controversy among a very wide range of people. If you were to write a special issue of a magazine, "The USA in 2019," this would merit a mention (at least, if 2019 is like 2018). B^e ⊢ C^ritical 08:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it was blown up out of all proportion, but that's what makes it notable. Of considerable cultural importance: "The Covington Catholic fight is American politics in microcosm," etc. St Anselm (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This has ongoing international coverage, and the current article is helpful for understanding the context and participants. From an international perspective, 'MAGA teens incident' would have been a useful title, but the article does come up on the search for articles containing those words. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have two events here, the initial reaction and the media backpedaling. All well sourced.--v/r - T P 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant. WesSirius (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This news story exploded nationally and even internationally. There is no way this does not merit its own article under the notability guidelines. I think it's likely that this topic will be brought up and discussed for years to come. If anything, the Indigenous Peoples March article should be merged into this one, not the other way around. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at any rate the nomination isn't very convincing. The nominator cites WP:NOTNEWS, and all NOTNEWS has to say about this situation is "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of... events". And it also says "Editors are encouraged to... develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". I'd say that this event is something that some non-zero number of people are going to want to look at even decades from now. Probably. I mean people delving into the social history of these times, as well as other people. It's not like the article is about a pileup on I-95. So NOTNEWS encourages us to create articles like this, and it's kind of odd to cite it as a reason to delete. As to WP:DELAY, that's just a guideline, a guideline with which I don't agree for various reasons, besides which WP:RAPID right below is titled "Don't rush to delete articles" and opens with "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge". So overall this is not a very convincing nomination. I'm not voting on the issue since I haven't examined the article, just making this one point. Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I haven't read or even clicked on the article so I have no idea if the content of the article is worth keeping or needs a total overhaul. However, I agree with those who say there has been enough coverage talking about the initial coverage and public reaction to pass NOTE. I don't think merging into the 2019 IPM makes sense because, let's be honest, this incident is what's getting coverage, not the rest of the march. I suspect the article title should be considered since it could be considered biased and I'm not sure there is a COMMON name for it. Edit: Having just clicked the link, I don't think the current title works since the incident involved 3 groups (the students, the IPM and the BHI's). Springee (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MPS. There is no clear merge target as the article says this occurred after the two marches. 9³ (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. No convincing argument to delete. I really don’t get why I should care whether it is kept or merged. What’s the benefit of either against the other? Doesn’t seem important. 71.167.14.104 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep, do not merge I am in Europe and almost every major European newspaper and television news networks have covered this as an event (e.g. not as part of something else, but as a moment in itself .... hence, don't merge). If that is not WP:GNG, what is? Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Continued coverage in US and international media. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, but this has enduring notability. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO it is entirely silly this kerfuffle got hyped up to being with. However, coverage by WaPo, NYT, BBC, and the like is not tabloid journalism - and has been on-going through today (initially siding one way, then waffling the other way once the initial coverage came out as biased). It actually is quite possible that this will have a lasting effect due to the very wide misreporting when this broke. At present - given the very wide national and international coverage - we are in a WP:RAPID situation and should keep. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that merging Nathan Phillips (activist) to this article has merit - but best to discuss that after the AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- 10 days later and new developments keep coming. This is the most notable social media event in the US this year so far. Kire1975 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a major news event within a period of intense social and racial division in the United States, with many different perspectives concerning the amount of blame the individual parties shared during the incident. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than merge - The indigenous march article is actually much less important than this incident. From what I've read and seen, that March was over before this occurred. Little of the coverage mentions the March, except to explain why Phillips and his companions were nearby at in the first place. Mattnad (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mattnad above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has a lot of significant media coverage. Also, this has been shown to be a prime example of the unreliability of viral videos and news stories commenting on them by various publications and therefore may have an impact on journalism itself. MikeOwen ^discuss 18:30, 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. Although sources such as "Ctparanormalsearchers.weebly.com" and "Kooztop5.blogspot.com" obviously need to be purged from the article, the fact that dodgy sources are covering a topic isn't a reason to discount decent sources covering the same topic. I also have sympathy for the nominator's argument that sources surrounding fringe topics tend to proliferate by citing each other, but again, no convincing refutation has been made of the reliable sources presented here. As such, I cannot close this as anything other than "keep". Vanamonde (Talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melon heads

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

Basically, a hoax. Apparently one that's been around a while and garnered a little bit press. Lots of sources in the article, but none appear to be WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is not a hoax, this is Connecticut (and Western Conne... er, Ohio/Michigan) folklore. Melon heads are akin to Bigfoot or the Headless Horseman. The article is sufficiently cited for what it is, and I've just now added two new sources that should pass the bar (the Connecticut Post, the Detroit Free Press). Markvs88 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources found by the Google Books search linked above have coverage in books published by Sterling Publishing, Rosen Publishing and Rowman & Littlefield, so this is obviously not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ctparanormalsearchers.weebly.com, Kooztop5.blogspot.com, LiveJournal, and Damnedct.com are clearly not WP:RS, and should be removed, along with large unsourced sections such as the one about "Dracula Drive". What remains seems to have a decent amount of reliably-sourced coverage, but needs to be rewritten to sound like an encyclopedia rather than a fanzine. Remember, even reliable sources indulge in WP:SENSATIONAL stories from time to time, so publishing house or newspaper name alone shouldn't be the sole determining factor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with your statement, with the exception of Damnedct.com. It is regularly cited by other publications (including the Connecticut Post) which is a part of Hearst. It is most certainly reliable, though it is kitchy. Markvs88 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any web site where "the voice of skepticism and reason" is also an astrologer[8] can be described as reliable, however much anyone else might cite it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said... kitchy. (I never said it was Scientific American!) Markvs88 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not just kitchy, but also obviously unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the topic, let's face it... we have to assume a certain amount of "subculture reporting". Just like in the STEM articles we accept scientific papers that may or may not be accurate (ala [9]) because they just don't have any other outlet. Markvs88 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of 'em, and based on the sourcing they are clearly more of a hoax than established "folklore". I agree with the nominator that they lack notability for an article. Comparing them to extremely well known figures such as the Headless Horseman is an unconvincing argument as they are obviously nowhere near that level._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Never heard of 'em" must be one of the worst arguments for deletion that I have seen, and we are supposed to be evaluating the notability of the article subject, not the article, which involves looking for sources beyond those currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard of Moon Hunters... let's delete that too! After all it is purely fiction. Or, are you saying that "Issaria" is real? Or have you done a survey in Connecticut and the old Western Reserve to see if its a thing? Markvs88 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the fact that a WP:ADHOMINEM argument is also a bad argument to use in deletion, those fictional articles make no attempt to assert that they are widely known by the general public. This article on the other hand, purports to be a "legend". Should a legend not be widely known? There is not enough evidence of such things to establish it as what it claims to be, a "legend" and folklore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and that's what the sources say, do they not? Google "melonhead legend" and you get 5.4 million hits. Okay, fine re: Moon Hunters. Let me frame it better: how many things on List of cryptids have you never heard of? My guess is most of them (as it is for me). Melonheads are widely known here in CT... which is again what the sources (including notable newspapers) have stated. Markvs88 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Markvs88, you are really not doing this article any favours by citing numbers of Google hits etc. One encyclopedia edited by academics and published by an academic publisher (as I cited below) is worth any number of millions of Google hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zxcvbnm, nobody has made any WP:ADHOMINEM argument here, but people have simply pointed out how ridiculous your argument (not you as a person) was when you said "Never heard of 'em". Do you really think that this encyclopedia should only cover topics that you personally, of all the people in the world, have heard of? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia aims to be at least as inclusive as print encyclopedias, and this print encyclopedia, from an academic publisher and edited by academics, has an entry of well over 1000 words for this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I can't speak for Ohio or Michigan, but this is a well known and well documented urban legend in Connecticut, and the CT sections of the article are correspondingly cited. Kuralyov (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:GNG pass. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 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 speedy delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Lofgren

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

Obvious failure of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I removed a BLPPROD becuase there are reliable sources in the article, but they're routine and do not establish notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted the article at the author's request. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beattie

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability. She's not known for anything other than recent stupid tweet. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 17:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Vogue article is a reliable source, but there is no information about Sarah Beattie. IMDb is not reliable. Searches turned up reports about her tweet, nothing else. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON for this young comedian. I have failed to find any significant sources online that suggest she's currently notable. Maybe later she'll be mega. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E was written for incidents like this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tweet is more notable than the person who posted it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E...and nom, I guess; "those about to be indef'd, we salute you" :D ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way TOO SOON. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:47, 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 redirect to Ideal gas law. Tone 17:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Combined gas law

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

A subset/consequence of the ideal gas law (to where I think a redirect is in order) where the constant k is not related to molar values.

We have other gas law articles, e.g. Boyle's law, separate from the IGL, but that is justified by a well-established meaning and significant historical context, described in the article. On the other hand, the "combined gas law" is used by quite a few sources as synonymous for IGL: many GScholar hits use "R" as the constant symbol, for instance, which is a clear giveaway; furthermore, I could find no "historical context" content in online sources. (Among the two article refs, I have no access to the Lionel Raff textbook, and the Java applet calls it "ideal gas law".) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove if no sources found. This article is so old and basic that I did not even hesitate before about its reliability. --MaoGo (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to ideal gas law, and add a sentence there making note of this term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ideal gas law. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ideal gas law and mention the use of this term per XOR'easter; this is a WP:CFORK that can adequately be addressed there. ComplexRational (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous textbooks that describe combined gas law, and it is commonly given as separate from ideal gas law - [16][17][18][19]. Given these sources, the reason given by the nominator sounds close to OR, and a simple redirect is bound to confuse students looking for these terms. At least a partial merge of its content is necessary if this article is to be redirected. Its relationship to ideal gas law should be explained, and Wikipedia should explain rather than confuse. Hzh (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I agree with a partial merge (as I said above), and would suggest a WP:RSECT to avoid a WP:SURPRISE. ComplexRational (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer a keep because any merge of this sort should be discussed first in the talk page so that those who are knowledgeable with the subject can discuss how to merge the two. Otherwise there is a risk that you might end up with a garbled content and that would do a disservice to students who might consult these articles in their studies. This is particularly important given that this AfD is based on a faulty premise that somehow combined gas law and ideal gas law are the same. They are not - while you can derive ideal gas law from combined gas law by introducing a gas constant R and an n, they are given as different in textbooks and therefore should not be confused. It is also possible to expand the article with the sources available. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Process-wise, it would be totally valid to decide at AfD to merge and then hammer out the exact text later; to my knowledge, whenever an AfD ends up as "merge" that is how it is done, we do not kick it back to WP:RM. As to the rest, I will answer Nick Moyes' comment below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge, having seen the sources but no historical background yet, I change my vote to merge. --MaoGo (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment In light of the above, I agree about a merge and RSECT. I suggest a new section in Ideal gas law#Equation. Here's some text for the AfD closer per Wikipedia:Merge what? (clearly this can and should be edited further after the AfD closes):

Proposed merge text

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

Combined gas law

Combining Charles's law, Boyle's law, and Gay-Lussac's law gives the combined gas law: ^[1]

${\frac {PV}{T}}=k$

where:

$P$ is the pressure of the gas,
$V$ is the volume of the gas,
$T$ is the absolute temperature of the gas,
$k$ is a constant (for a fixed amount of gas).

^ Raymond, Kenneth W. (2010). General, organic, and biological chemistry : an integrated approach (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 186. ISBN 9780470504765. Retrieved 29 January 2019.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, I completely disagree with this proposal to merge into Ideal gas law. This page, as it exists, functions well and encyclopaedically to demonstrate how the 'combined gas law' is derived from derived from Boyles, Charles' and Guy-Lussac's laws and how it can be applied. It's fundamental to science. If anything, the Ideal Gas Law page ought to be merged into this one, and the reference cited by Tigraan in their merge proposal serves only to demonstrate this. And here's another for chemistry dummies that demonstrates the same. That there is no historical section to show how the combined gas law derived from Boyles, Charles' and Guy-Lussac's laws is totally irrelevant if multiple sources demonstrate (as they do) this is a scientifically recognised term and a notable topic in its own right - which, non-chemist though I am - I firmly believe it is. This page stands alone as a simple-to-understand page on an important law, separate from the more theoretical Avogadro's law-based Ideal gas law, albeit they are closely allied. Either keep these two articles distinct, or merge Ideal gas law into this one, not the other way around! The proposed target page is already complex enough, seems less significant than this page under deletion discussion, and the target written in a less non-encyclopaedic tone, using the 2nd person voice (you) as if it were a classroom workbook (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). Nick Moyes (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the math of how the CGL is derived from Boyle's etc. is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Once you remove the math, there is little left in the article, hence I believe it should be covered in a parent article.

My point about the "historical context" stuff is not that such context is needed to have an article (it is not). The point is that when you remove the math, all there is left to a combined gas law article is "The formula is PV/T=cst and you can derive it from Boyle+Charles+Gay-Lussac", which is short enough to be covered by a parent article. Since there is a natural merge target, we should not keep a permastub around. (Whether fixable problems currently ail the target article is not an obstacle to such a merge.)

As to the suggestion to merge the other way around, well, I could not disagree more. The ideal gas law as scientific concept has been discussed in science history books (two examples), it was used as measurement target in a pedagogy study. It is standalone-notable from a historical point of view alone (we have an article about phlogiston even if no modern chemistry textbook uses it). If you can find similar sources for the combined gas law, I will gladly change to !vote keep, but all I could find are textbooks (the only non-textbook interesting mention I found from GScholar is [20] but I do not have access to it). Also, to be perfectly clear, if a textbook gave such information it would be an appropriate source, but understandably textbooks usually contain the mathematical derivation and it's all. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that ideal gas law is the more important topic, since some textbooks mention the ideal gas law but don't mention the combined gas law. I'm assuming that's because you can derive the ideal gas law from the laws of Boyle, Charles and Gay-Lussac, and then add the Avogadro's hypothesis. However, the argument of whether it is in science history books or not is irrelevant, and the notability of the subject can be established by the topic being covered in textbooks. I'm also pretty sure that a topic found in textbooks is something that has already been discussed in other scholarly books and articles, and it is just a matter of whether someone takes the trouble to use them to expand the article. Hzh (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree textbooks are a sufficient basis for notability, but the question is whether they give anything to write about. What would counceivably the article be expanded about? If your position is "just have a permastub, where's the harm in that", well, I do not think there is a policy against it. However, "there must be lots of other interesting stuff in other sources yet unfound" is unlikely to fly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the assertion is that it will be a permastub, and that there can be nothing more added, neither of which you have shown to be true. It is not a stub at the moment, the mathematical part is necessary to show how this law is derived, and although the derivation part can be trimmed a bit, it still won't be a stub even after trimming. Hzh (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Zeller

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

Fails WP:NPOL nor is he notable as a military member. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOL per nom. Skirts89 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but there's no strong evidence here that he could be considered to have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy — the sources which exist outside of the campaign context are all either video clips of him speaking about something other than himself, or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's set aside the losing candidacy and look at the career. He founded and is CEO of No One Left Behind. His book got a very positive review in Foreign Policy.(now added to page) He got WP:SIGCOV a decade ago for helping the translator he worked with in Afghanistan get a visa to come to America: featured profiles on CNN and in People Magazine. He continues to be interviewed and to have speaking gigs related to No One Left Behind, but the SIGCOV peaked long enough ago that it requires the use of new archive searches. (I added some to page.) Bio details can be expanded from the election coverage, which is reliable even though it does not contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, I sourced it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidate for public office. His other actions do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of his achievements aside, the fact is that there has been WP:SIGCOV of those achievements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisting because, well, when I am in a minority at AfD I like to step back and double check my opinion. So I went to the page asking myself, does this really pass the bar at WP:SIGCOV. I clicked the first link, a bare URL linking to an essay in the Wall Street Journal that I had not read before opining (I did clean up and source other parts of the page.) But the first link is a deeply moving 2015 essay about Zeller by William McGurn. Paywalled, unfortunately. But I am confident in my opinion that this subject passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing this as delete would be defensible at this point, but I'd like to give people another week to evaluate the improvements made to the article during the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Baxtrom

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

Several issues. The article appears closer to an advertisement than a neutral WP:POV. It focuses more on the restaurant owned by Baxtom than Baxtom himself WP:COATRACK, and it fails to establish Baxtom's notability; as with the article itself, most references either focus on the restaurant itself or only mentioning the restaurant in passing; only one has any reasonable length on Baxtrom, and even there the primary focus of the article is his restaurant. As such, I believe it fails WP:N - it's possible that the restaurant itself is sufficiently notable, but I don't believe merging is the correct solution in this case, given the WP:POV issues found herein. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Fails POV, GNG, and multiple other criteria. I think it's possibly a COI as well. Skirts89 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Sources are about the subject's restaurant. Restaurant has good coverage, might be good as part of a (yet to be created) section on restaurants in the Farm to table article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on awards. The chef is arguably the reason why they have the fame they do. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for one, the awards are all won by the Restaurant, not the Chef. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say but I disagree. As the owner, he is responsible to a great extent, for the restaurant’s success. Ok, example. Steven Spielberg’s films were critical and commercial successes. Nominated for numerous awards during his career. But he personally never won an Oscar until much later in his career. But no one argued his role in the success of his films. I am saying the same thing here. He deserves credit for the success of his business. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So does someone with a PhD. Unfortunately, their PhD doesn't make them notable, as these awards doesn't make this man. What we need to discuss is whether this man is notable enough to be here, not whether he deserves to be here.-- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assertions that article or references cover the restaurant not Greg Baxtrom are unsupported. See [21] and [22] where Baxtrom is mentioned more frequently than Olmsted. The restaurant is not mentioned until the second half of the article. Clearly the reason Baxtrom is notable is because of Olmsted but he is clearly notable and given the awards and coverage, it is not WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. As to WP:NPOV, that's a subjective assessment and I don't see a serious issue here. In any case, deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 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 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kvng's sources. There are multiple, reliable, and sufficiently extensive sources which are primarily about the subject. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron 32 13:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the second source suggested by Kvng is certainly Sig Cov regarding Baxtrom. The former is more marginal, with functionally every paragraph not dedicated to the restaurant at least mixed in with it. That said, I do believe it's a marginal issue, and a reasonable case can be made for retention. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 6 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 Draftify. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trident's Wake

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

Not notable. Not covered extensively by any reliable source. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending release. "Scheduled to be released" is a tipoff for concerns about whether it will ever be released, or amount to anything if it does. bd2412 T 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

draftify Entirely non suitable on Wikipedia mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Track Entertainment

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are only passing mentions. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this as needing sources five years ago. That has yielded nothing of value. bd2412 T 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial entry, promo piece and lacks notability for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vaughan-Richards

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor who wrote the article, I feel that the charge of COI is quite disingenuous, Vaughan-Richards's architectural works are less popular than John_Godwin_and_Gillian_Hopwood and Fry, Drew and Partners, the other two notable colonial post-colonial British Nigerian/expatriate architects. I knew about him a few years ago because his name always comes up in tropical architecture and African architecture (colonial and Post Colonial) but his public works were not many like the other two, he was more into private architecture, so I was hesitant to write about him. But I came to understand why his name keeps coming up is partly because he co-wrote Building Lagos with his brother in law, Akinsemoyin which comes up in at-least 15 books in a google books [[23]] as a source of reference. In addition, he was the editor/started West African Builder and Architect, the first architectural journal in West Africa and wrote the most articles in the jounral. though it was short-lived, it was the first journal that dealt with architecture of West Africa.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, There are some references to this subject in books in print - Swimming Between Worlds, Lagos: A Cultural and Literary History, World Architecture 1900-2000: Central and Southern Africa, The Arts of Africa: An Annotated Bibliography, Volume 2. There appears to be room for growth. Possibly move to draft, if the article is not improved over the period of this discussion. bd2412 T 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexplaugh12:: It would be helpful if the article was improved by the addition of some of the sources that I have provided above. bd2412 T 17:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete Subject has zero News results and book references are extremely minor (a few quotes from subject). No significant notability to warrant an article. Article has single author with no other contributors, and author removes NOTABILITY template on his or her own without allowing other contributors the opportunity to find better references. --PhobosIkaros (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is deceased, so I do not know how far you are looking at historical news sources.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News sources are irrelevant when we have much better academic sources, such as those cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of this article I'm not surprised that the author got annoyed with your addition of an obviously incorrect "notability" tag. Notability was perfectly clear from creation. Actions like yours only serve to drive knowledgeable editors away from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Article has single author with no other contributors". And your point is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs to be improved, but I don't think it fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entry in Grove Art Online is enough to show that the outside world considers the subject to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, and the other sources cited in the article go even further in underlining notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources prove his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After reading the discussion there appears to be a rough consensus to delete. The only viable WP:PAG based argument presented by those favoring retention looks to hinge on the of interpretation of point 3 of WP:PROF. Unfortunately, I find the interpretive arguments presented by those favoring deletion to be generally persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ranganathan

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

I cannot understand about how this person meets general notability guidelines or any of our subject-specific-notability guidelines.

AFAIS, he is an associate professor (which fails WP:NACADEMIC), born to a may-be-notable chemist, (which fails WP:NOTINHERITED) who is incidentally also a run-of-the-mill ~~journalist~~ columnist over news-portals (which fails WP:NJOURNALIST) and got into a bizarre controversy; that nobody bothered about except a right-wing-non RS (OpEd). He is also supposedly a free speech absolutist who eulogizes Ambedkar but those are not pathways to encyclopedic notability or so I believe. Thus, I'm left with his' writing three books, which hardly made any buzz or were any acclaimed (Fails WP:NAUTHOR; I spot a few reviews of a part. book though) and some trivial mentions in media-reports about his being part of a research group (fails WP:SIGCOV).

I further note that he has given an interview to RepublicTv (FoxNews of India) and was an invited guest at a lit-fest. Has trivial mentions as a right-wing thinker but that's it.

If anyone does a GSearch, he/she might be expected to find several mentions in OpIndia. It's a non-reliable source.∯WBG^converse 13:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The language used by you is clearly derogatory and biased. He is not a journalist, but a columnist. I guess you don't understand the difference. Many similar articles, with much worse citations are still active on Wikipedia, why is this article being singled out, despite having sources such as World Economic Forum He has also appeared on panels in various news channels. There are articles dedicated to his views on mainstream media platforms as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IndianHistoryEnthusiast, what SN says below. Also, appearing in panel on a TV is hardly an indicaator of encyclopedic notability. Also, see WP:INTERVIEW. ∯WBG^converse 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianHistoryEnthusiast: all things being equal, what other articles are ike is an argument to avoid in discussions such as these. Just FYII. ——SerialNumber54129 13:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources from mainstream media, coverage in Republic TV and The Hindu. He has won various awards, as mentioned in the article, with credible sources such as world economic forum, confirming the same.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndianHistoryEnthusiast, none of those awards remotely confer any notability. ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're trying to do here. You allow other articles with worse sources to remain on Wikipedia, as it is written by people you know, you will target me if I apply the same criteria here, but will bully me here to find more sources, you have already made up your mind about it. It doesn't matter how many sources I find, whether it is The Hindu, Republic, India Today, World Economic Forum, TED, Times of India. You are going to delete the article.

The person clearly appears regularly on TV, with the channel having the highest TRP, has more than a 100k followers on twitter, has written multiple books. Newspapers like The Hindu have taken his interview. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? You wouldn't allow me to move similar articles to draft or for deletion, but will delete this because you have an axe to grind. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you guys don't learn from the press coverage.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to leave this here.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding his paper published in nature.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndianHistoryEnthusiast, can you give an example of a worse-written article that we are actively allowing to stay in WP?

I know none over here (in a off-wiki sense) and I have no enmity with either you or the subject.

You need to understand that WP:GNG seeks significant coverage. You need to accept that interviews are not counted towards establishment of notability, because they are almost-always intellectually independent, as over here. And, an interview in RepublicTV which has morphed into a right-wing-propaganda medium does not do any favor.

I would have given some minimal thoughts; if he had spoken over TED; as you claim. But he has spoken over TEDx (which is radically watered-down version of the former).

None of the awards received by him are any revered by the professional community or at the topmost tier of the field.

Having hordes of twitter followers is not a criterion of our notability. Those numbers are ridiculously easy to manipulate.

And, you can nominate any article of your choice at WP:AFD after following WP:BEFORE. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So many academics publish papers in reputable journals and you might wish to see our relevant criterion.∯WBG^converse 14:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about interview given to The Hindu and Republic TV. Authorship of three books, and his work on Malaria and Tuberculosis that got covered in multiple national and international media. His page on World Economic Forum and Observer Research Foundation.. He has also appeared as a panelist in ORF discussions.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"an interview in RepublicTV which has morphed into a right-wing-propaganda medium does not do any favor."-Last I remember, Republic TV was described as a News Channel on Wikipedia. Unless you edit it and replace it with "right-wing-propaganda medium", this argument doesn't make sense. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the stuff that's being thrown at you. Reading WP:INTERVIEW would have given you the answers of your first query. He authored 3 books, so what? There are millions of published authors; do you believe that confers some special notability? I can't get a single review of 2 of his books and that says a lot. Which international media featured him for his work? Every-time somebody claims that they have discovered a noble cure XYZ for disease ABC; media flocks on the person. If you read the relevant sections of newspapers from across the world over the past few years; you will get at-least a few thousand people who have developed the cure to treat AIDS or developed a new drug agsinst malaria/TB/Cancer or made some sort of unimaginable breakthrough. It's almost always an eerie quietness thereafter and years later, they just dis-appear into the void. ∯WBG^converse 15:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And being a speaker at ORF; does not contribute to notability, either. ∯WBG^converse 15:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read Republic_TV#Criticism and the next section too. I can add a host of other sources. ∯WBG^converse 15:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, next time I will make sure to take your approval before wasting hours, trying to find sources and write an article, because apparently this gives you a power trip. Coverage from Brookings Institute will also probably mean squat to you, since you have already made up your mind. So let's revise. 1. Interviews (even in national newspaper) don't contribute to notability. 2.Having multiple published papers doesn't contribute to notability. 3. Coverage of research in multiple national and international media doesn't contribute to notability 3. Being a speaker at multiple ORF events, TEDeX or Pondi Lit fest and Mangaluru Lit Fest doesn't contribute to notability. While pages like this enjoy your patronage. Slow claps for your hypocrisy.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many admins who would be willing to wield Special:Block/IndianHistoryEnthusiast for the above personal attack.

FWIW, (1) interviews seldom contribute to notability (2) multiple published papers doesn't contribute to notability unless at-least 2 or 3 of the papers are heavily cited (3) coverage of research in national media (I'm still clueless, as to the international coverage) usually falls under WP:BLP1E and is almost always a non-significant achievement in the long-run and (4) speakers at these events indeed do not contribute to notability.

MSAR has got multiple obituaries in relevant academic journals; search for them. The current quality of an article is not any relevant indicator of the notability of the subject. ∯WBG^converse 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note for contributors and the closing admin: FYI, IndianHistoryEnthusiast has been blocked for 48 h by Bishonen following the above personal attack. Given the response to WBG following the block notice, it is clear that there is an ongoing issue between these editors. EdChem (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing there to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The introduction says that "Anand is known for his contribution towards development of a vaccine, for Tuberculosis". This seems to be the only claim in the introduction for real noteworthiness. (I don't mean to criticize the preceding sentence, which appears to be a straightforward description, and as such is proper.) If he is indeed known for this contribution (which we later read "was widely reported by the media"), then what is this contribution, and how has it been portrayed in scientific/medical publications? -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF has been a member of the Indian Academy of Sciences AND MEETS point 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.Indian Academy of Sciences Anand and WP:GNG.2402:3A80:474:ED80:D9FB:7AD4:C9F7:5 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:PROF criterion 3 as the Indian Academy of Sciences membership was an Associateship position from 2002 to 2006 rather than a Fellowship. His Associateship page does mention tuberculosis work, so if it had led to a vaccine in the ensuing decade, it is odd that his name is not mentioned in the articles tuberculosis or BCG vaccine or tuberculosis vaccines. I can find work on characterising the Mycobacterium tuberculosis aspartate decarboxylase enzyme (published in Protein Expression and Purification in 2002, doi:10.1016/S1046-5928(02)00039-6) and on its crystal structure (published in PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics in 2006, doi:10.1002/prot.21126), and on the interactions of proteins encoded by the phthiocerol dimycocerosate locus of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (published in Molecular Genetics and Genomics in 2004, doi:10.1007/s00438-004-1088-3). There are more recent publications in journals including Nature and PLoS / PLoS One but none with substantial citations. One page I saw indicated an h-index of 7, which is hardly the stuff of WP:PROF-passing wikibios. I am willing to be persuaded of a pass under WP:GNG or another subject-specific guideline, though nothing I have seen to date is persuasive, and certainly I do not see a case for inclusion under WP:PROF. EdChem (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem There have only been 346 associates since it was founded in 1934.Former Associates 346 Associates and there are 66 current associates it is very prestigious in India.Current Associates 66 Associates.He was a member of the elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association .Both fellows and associates are notable nowhere does WP:PROF say only Fellows are notable it says members are notable and he was a member.Further meets WP:GNG.2402:3A80:454:94F1:C594:3D83:F8D4:6B30 (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, criterion 3 of WP:PROF states: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE). The Indian Academy of Sciences is not at the level of the Royal Society nor the National Academy of Sciences, though it is a major scholarly society for which Fellowship confers notability. If Ranganathan becomes a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences, he will be notable for WP under WP:PROF. You contend that the Associateship he held confers notability in the same way. Certainly it is selective and elected but it is also an early-career opportunity available for potential or likely future Fellows. I do not think it is sufficient for automatic notability, but I will initiate a discussion to see what others think. EdChem (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Notability Criterion 3 and the Indian Academy of Sciences. Any and all contributions to that discussion are welcome. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?. I don't think notability can be found in WP:Prof and not in #3: maybe WP:Author? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No concrete evidence of notability. Capitals00 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria No. 3 for WP:Prof The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor Anand's profile at Indian Academy of Sciences. His work has also received significant coverage in media. Brookings Institute, NewsMinute, The Hindu among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete - there is a lot of stuff swirling around here but he never seems quite to reach the various notability criteria. News reports about the TB thing, for example, are the sort of guff that journalists like to regurgitate from press releases but science is a slow-moving thing and there is no evidence that it has gotten anywhere. Similarly, he has been on the lower rungs of the IAS ladder, which makes it more of a limited scholarship award than membership. He's not met our criteria, as far as I can see, although he may do one day. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found in WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk).

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Dobrik

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject is not notable. Coverage is mostly trivial and passing mentions. There is not enough significant coverage about the subject in WP:RS. Notability is not based on popularity. See argument on talk page it is about a person who is very popular. Also notability is not based on inheritance. There are un-sourced claims of celebrities subject has interviewed on youtube. These do not denote notability either. The number of other you-tubers known by this subject is also not important. The article is very promotional and is not suited for wikipedia. Z359q (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m honestly surprised this page managed to get created. The draft was trash (I would know I had to correct it). While he’s a popular YouTuber and controversial DACA recipient, there are absolutely 0 reliable sources about him. Guy breaks up with girl isn’t news. Someone also removed some factual BLP information. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have the BBC [24], Wired Magazine [25], The Verge [26], Sky News [27], the Evening Standard [28] etc. So I question your "zero reliable sources". There is also The Post [29] (but you can question that as a student newspaper) or the non-RS Daily Mail [30]. I didn't dig through the 11 hits on Google Scholar, but the person does look notable as a "famous Youtube personality" or whatever. Certainly it was not clear cut enough to delete this as a G4, so I declined the speedy. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero reliable sources to substantiate notability. Common sense. That’s what this is about. BBC’s Newsbeat section is their Page Six for social media and gossip. Guy breaks up with girl isn’t BBC’s actual news. Trillfendi (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it’s extremely rude to call the draft trash. All Wikipedia articles have to start somewhere. Saying that you had to fix it is extremely false. Many editors worked to make it what it is now. (The reason I’m so mad about your statements is that I created it, so thanks for that.) The sources listed are of reliability, and since you are the “fixer” of the page, maybe you could go out and find some new sources? Just a suggestion. Oh well, what do I know? It’s not like I’ve been editing Wikipedia pages for years or whatever.VoltronUniverse

This is not an article about Dobrik, but this Forbes article clearly assumes most people reading stories about YouTube know Dobrik, which does indicate notability to me. I'll just say keep at this point. —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 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 11:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, as per Kusma. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kusma and the fact that he gets some hits in google scholar [31]. I think Wiki is certainly outdated in the way it treats internet celebrities; not our fault but i don't think old media sources know how to accurately cover a mainly young phenomenon. Because under any definition this guy's dedicated audience is bigger then 90% of entertainers on this site. If any other entertainer had ten million dedicated followers they'd have tons of sources. It's just the media seems to have a weak spot covering internet celebrities. GuzzyG (talk) 04:19, 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 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kusma as the article sites more sources than some articles of other entertainer sources on this website. Saying there is not enough sources is not fair considering other articles (e.g. Sasha Sloan) that provide less information about the person and provide less sources. If there was not enough sources as a biography of a living person per the amount of information, Bots would automatically alert editors to that. This article is about an influencer with 10million+ fans and describes his career and the group of people he is involved with. I say keep. Thanks, VoltronUniverse (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources indicate meeting GNG.. Specifically, the forbes article cited by Kusma implies that people are already familiar with Dobrik. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 13 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 School of Infantry and Tactics. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Army Airborne School

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

The references in this article make no mention of the Bangladesh Army Airborne School. There are no news media reports or any book mention which verify the existence of this institution. SRS 00 t@lk, 12:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Infantry and Tactics. " Bangladesh Airborne School" was used at least in the past - see [32][33]. However, it seems that per our article (not a source) and the Bangladeshi military (better- about self) - see their webpage - " In 1982, 'Special Warfare School' was merged with this institution as 'Special Warfare Wing'. ".Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Infantry and Tactics per Icewhiz's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Please see recent AfDs involving other Bangladesh military units. Skirts89 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Infantry and Tactics. Lorstaking (talk) 10:25, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Eshleman

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

This person has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first off the article lacks any reliable sources, we can't have articles sourced just to factulty pages. One contribution to a specialized encyclopedia does not notability make. Nothing suggests his impact is high enough to pass Academic notability guidelines #1, and nothing in the article at all suggests there is any possiblity of his meeting any other academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single well-cited encyclopedia article and an edited volume are neither enough for WP:PROF#C1 nor WP:AUTHOR and there seems to be nothing else of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page was created in 2005, has no sources - who cares? the question here is whether this chap is notable. I think not because although his encyclopedia article on "Moral Philosoply" is widely cited, none of his journal articles have been widely cited. Looks like he is a reputable philosophy prof, but not a notable scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue

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

Ideally merged with tax competition. The article does not show that the report is particularly notable to warrant an article. If notability for the report may be demonstrated, then the article can be kept. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Trillfendi (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with tax competition per nom GirthSummit _(blether) 02:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources here--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three of the first four hits from the Google Scholar search linked by Path slopu above (I didn't need to look any further) are academic papers specifically about this report, rather than the general topic of tax competition: [34], [35], [36], with the final one being a retrospective paper written after ten years, so long-term impact is demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - since the scholar search shows this passes the ridiculously low bar of WP:NBOOK (which creates an open avenue for POV articles).Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidji

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

I found no significant coverage and the article is unreferenced. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per G5. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Theatre Calcutta

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

This article was created by user Banglar Babu who has since been blocked for socking. The article is rubbish. The book exists but is not as described in the Plot section and the citations given do not back up the material they are supposed to support. I do not think this article meets WP:NBOOK, but if the subject is notable, the article needs to be completely rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a relatively recent publication. I would expect a notable book to have some reviews or at least some amount of news coverage. I am unable to find any. I checked the website of the publisher, named "Pango Publisher", but it seems to be a small independent publisher. Interestingly, the only books mentioned on the website seem to be those by the same author. I believe this is a self published book by a young author (who possibly set up the publisher as well). At this time the book itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. On a personal note, I would encourage the author of this book to send the manuscripts to some established publisher for reviews.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as WP:G5 – the sock master Shaunak Chakraborty was indeffed on 2 December 2018, before this was created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Greschner

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

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia – a few passing mentions, no in-depth coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A former prison group leader with no significant coverage and only passing mentions in a few articles about other people. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The only source with any depth I found in searches is a Southern Poverty Law Center article, largely based on what Greschner says about himself. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BLPCRIME. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not ever extremist who mirdered another person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Goertz

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

This subject is not notable. There are not enough references which contain significant coverage about the subject rather than passing mentions. Notability is not inherited. Z359q (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom's claims are the opposite of reality. Very in-depth coverage specifically about this person from the likes of the Huffington Post, Billboard, Vice and Inverse. [37][38][39][40]. How the nom, whom I notice has very limited editing history, came to the conclusion there are only "passing mentions" of this person when much of this in-depth coverage was already in the article is beyond me. There seems to be some other kind of motivation here. Oakshade (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FYI to above editor, The Huffington Post is problematic as a reliable source per numerous source discussions, but others cited are good (although Noisey is a bit "if-fy"). There is additional trade industry and mainstream recognition not cited in the article about her role as editor of Mad. Although they are nearly all tangential mentions, they cumulatively add weight to the notability argument even if they are not outright qualifying criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPost is problematic when it comes to accuracy based on bias, just as Fox News is problematic for the same reason. They both are, however, indicative of notability to topics they decide to give coverage to as both are very popular outlets. Noisey is in fact a part of Vice (magazine) and I've corrected my text as so. Oakshade (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessing Actually Noisey was merely acquired by Vice, but it is not the same thing, as content from it under it's old business model was subjected to different editorial standards. And, in fact, upon second look, I realize the article in Noisey was actually written by the subject herself, which means it's disqualified as a source lacking independent, third party recognition. This lead me to double checking Inverse. It may be a decent source, but I have my qualms about websites that solicit content ("pitch your ideas and write for us"...) See: https://www.inverse.com/about/contact . As for Huffington Post, it has problems beyond it's biases; in fact just last year they overhauled their business model after having grown to publishing over 100,000 contributors providing unvetted content without editorial control. See: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/huffington-post-ends-unpaid-contributor-blogger-program-1202668053/. My hunch is to still lean keep in that the Billboard article has genuine merit and the subject's professional credits might meet some sort of qualifying criteria, but I'll need more time to research. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... for now The only reliable source here is Billboard. Trillfendi (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Just for clarity and full disclosure to the closer and any participants of this AFD, the editor Oakshade is the original writer of this article. Z359q (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. As you are interested in "clarity and full disclosure" and your first few edits in the limited topics you've edited on demonstrate advanced wiki-editing knowledge, can you please disclose what account you are or have also edited as?Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If anyone has a problem with this article, the WP:TOOSOON standard might make a little sense. But even though she doesn't have a heck of a lot of media notice, the above arguments about reliable sources from "Keep" voters are much more convincing that the nominator's claim of non-notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think that DOOMSDAYER520 might be right in his argument, the question really is, whether for a musician / artist the sources available are satisfying or not. I don't have much experience with the specifics of artists yet, but to me it seems that they are not met. Talking about the quality of sources is good, but even if one is valid (which Billboard seems to be) it doesn't seem like there are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". --Ruhri Jörg 10:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can this subject’s role as Mad Magazine editor be clarified? The source cited here is a blog based apparently on the subjects own social media post. Yet the Magazine’s own press release cites Bill Morrison as the editor, backed up by a story in Washington Post (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/06/29/a-new-editor-a-new-home-but-mad-magazine-still-takes-sharp-aim-at-trump-and-roseanne/?utm_term=.c89424edb6ea). Allie Goertz is not mentioned in either. It may be she has a junior staff position (along with many other people) that includes the word “editor” in a job description, but for notability purposes, unless one is the overall editor (which may be the case with Bill Morrison?) it likely isn’t enough to count. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, she is an editor, but not the senior editor. Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 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 redirect to Falkland, Fife#Sport. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Golf Club

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

Article on local golf club that doesn't demonstrate notability, merely listing the facilities, and has no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jellyman (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Very short. 2562 yards off the back tees, par 34. No indication that anything notable has happened there. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some basic 3rd party listing entries such as this, but neither that nor anything else found in searches indicates encyclopaedic notability for this club and 9 hole course, by WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The club is mentioned at the Falkland, Fife article which seems sufficient. AllyD (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Falkland, Fife#Sport. The snippet of information contained in this article would fit neatly into that section. bd2412 T 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per bd2412 - can't find anything reliable and independent, just listings in directories etc. Falkland, Fife#Sport looks like the right place for it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I do not think the club is notable enough to have its own article, but the suggestion to mention it in Falkland, Fife#Sport and redirect there seems a good one. Dunarc (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if someone could do this with a source, we'd have a phenomenal result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 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 redirect to Party divisions of United States Congresses. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political power in the United States over time

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

Merely trivial non-encyclopedic content. Subject is discussed in further detail at Divided government in the United States, which provides pretty much the same stats. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is headed by a tag saying may need to be completely re-written to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There might be a space in Wikipedia for an article of this nature, but it needs more detail (as it stands, the article does not spell out which years the Democrats and Republicans were in power) and the article could do with a more specific title. Vorbee (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Party divisions of United States Congresses which seems to be much the same content. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Andrew D; the only content that might be mergeable is the popular vote table, and I don't think that's necessary. No need to delete the history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 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. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, the improvements made while this AFD was open clearly show that the complaints raised were fixable and therefore not appropriate for a deletion discussion. Whether this should be merged to the parent article can be addressed through normal channels of editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sudbury schools

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

This is essentially a list of external links to school websites. Only a handful (two?) of the schools on this list actually have articles. WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it had been a list with wikilinks to these schools, it would have been fine, but this is not the case, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKFARM not a linkfarm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only serves as a directory of external links, violating WP:NOTLINKFARM and having no encyclopedic value --DannyS712 (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an un-encyclopedic directory of links.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - There is encyclopedic value to this article most definitely but the current layout is poor and realistically each section needs a few paragraphs .... I've only seen one wikilink which for me isn't a justification for keeping, Delete but no objections to recreation (providing it isn't just one huge long list of schools!). –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SOFIXIT pretty much applies to my own comment - The layout can indeed be fixed, As I said it has encyclopedic value and I still stand by that. –Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say "Keep, obviously", because this is a valid list-article, as you all can see that Sudbury school is a valid article and it is valid to split out a list of notable examples. Y'all can have complaints about the state of the list (e.g. that it includes external links instead of constructing inline references), which can be addressed by your tagging the list and/or writing your complaints at its Talk page, but it is a valid list. It is simply fine, as an editorial matter, to split this out from the indisputably valid Sudbury school article. Also note that we can have a category of Sudbury schools and to have a list corresponding to the category.

By the way, I don't think wp:NOTDIR applies because the list does not include a bunch of ephemera like telephone numbers, which is what NOTDIR is about.

wp:LINKFARM does not apply because this does not have an external links section which is overgrown. It has an external links section with no entries whatsoever.

Editors should not cite essays which merely have a superficial suggestion from their name that they might apply, when they simply do not apply at all, IMHO, and if they do so repeatedly in multiple AFDs then I think the community should get around to banning them from participating in AFDs.--Doncram (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam is no different to having telephone numbers and thus still fails NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say "Keep, obviously", because of precedent and this is a valid list-article, as you all can see that Sudbury school is a valid article and it is valid to split out a list of notable examples. We have had List of democratic schools since 2006. Comparing with telephone numbers is silly.

One has just opened on my patch- my first question was what is a Sudbury school. That school is notable, in being a first of type, though it not a secondary school- and only part-time- so I would put it on the edge- I needed to know more- the Sudbury school article told me that- and now the question where are they? The list article answers that and influences my opinion on the school in general.

Again the linkfarm argument is attractive until you Google List of Sudbury schools- we are the only entry, the collated information has not been published elsewhere on line. Please read WP:NOTLINKFARM Paragraph 1. "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." hence this has been broken out into a separate article. ClemRutter (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing to the List of democratic schools article isn't fair, because that article actually has a list of schools that have their own articles. This is a just list of schools with links to their websites. If I were to remove all the spammy external links (which I actually did to the List of democratic schools article) and what do you have? A stub about Sudbury school, which already exists. If there are ever enough articless on individual Sudbury schools, then this article can be recreated. However, unitl then, it's just a target for spam. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ELLIST it is against common practice to have lists that are comprised of external links. Ajf773 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, per wp:ELLIST the list should be edited to remove the brackets. Not a big deal. See the "good" and "bad" examples there. Please do go ahead and make the change. --Doncram (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sudbury school and clean up. My suggestions - get rid of external links, closed schools, proposed schools, and all schools that are not known to be Sudbury schools. Aurornisxui (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I prefer "Keep" and oppose "Merge" because I think it is a reasonable editorial decision to choose to split out a list of examples in general, and here while there is no dispute that there are many notable examples, the specifics might be debatable. It seems best to keep the main article on Sudbury schools free of controversy over characteristics of specific schools. It's okay for there to be disagreement and discussion and even negative tagging, but better at a split-off list-article, not detracting from the main. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its better to have this list to its own rather than cluttering related pages. Easily fixable for content and format, and matches with lists of schools we have for other education methods. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 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) 09:35, 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. May be notable in the future but not now. Happy to restore to draft space in an editor requests it. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javlon Guseynov

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

The subject has never played in a fully professional league and thereby fails WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Whereas he was traded into a professional league and may gain notability there, it did not yet happen, and the article must be deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice or draftify, he's just a bit WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Rhoades

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

University athletic directors are rarely, if ever, notable. Not seeing anything satisfying WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an automatically notable position, no in depth sources. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than his employer's website to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles based on their current state. Independent, reliable sources are abound here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a discussion at WT:CFB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. A sample includes: 1) "Mack attack: Two years in, Baylor AD chasing challenges with gusto" Waco Tribune-Herald, 2) "There’s not much sadness that Mack Rhoades is leaving Mizzou" The Kansas City Star, 3) "Baylor AD Mack Rhoades: NCAA investigation will 'lead us where it leads us'" Associated Press, 4) "Univ. Of Missouri AD Mack Rhoades Shocks School By Leaving For Same Position At Baylor" Sports Business Daily, 5) "AD Mack Rhoades' surprising move from Missouri to Baylor: Three things to know" CBS Sports. The nomination is incorrect in citing WP:BIO, as it includes WP:BASIC that says meeting GNG is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG per sources referenced by Bagumba. ADs of Power Conference schools are notable more often than not; they are in charge of making newsworthy decisions for athletic departments whose revenues are in the hundreds of millions. There are 35 public universities with athletic department revenues higher than the NHL's Arizona Coyotes. Rhoades is particularly notable for his proximity to one of the most public scandals in college athletics in recent memory. —Ostealthy (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has served as athletic director at four Division I FBS universities (Baylor, Missouri, Houston, Akron) over the past 15 years. Passes WP:GNG. See, e.g., [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], and many more. Cbl62 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator--I have found that athletic directors almost always produce enough press to surpass WP:GNG and that clearly has been shown to be the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Bagumba and Cbl62. Contrary to the nominator's statement, nearly all NCAA D-I athletic directors do indeed meet WP:GNG, which he would likely have discovered had he done a WP:BEFORE search prior to filing this AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bagumba and Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many many Division I athletic directors on Wikipedia, with nothing else to show for their name. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Since no admin seems to want to step up to the plate and close this ..... no definitive argument that outweighs all the others has been put forward, despite relisting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Who's Who

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

Unsourced article about vanity publication generally considered unreliable as a source since the content is user provided, and the business model involves sales of the books to its subjects. Little media coverage to establish notability, beyond the idea of Who's Who in general, for which an article already exists. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This title was notable and reliable when it was published by University of Toronto Press, and arguably still is, since Grey House Publishing Canada is a reputable publisher of reference books. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've all heard of Who's Who, but I'm more concerned that this one doesn't have the required coverage to pass WP:GNG. A compromise might be to simply list it on the Who's Who page and redirect, but even that requires a single reliable source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Eastmain: AfDs are not decided votes or statements, but on providing significant independent verifable reliable sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, the subject's publisher might be the most "reputable publisher of reference books" on the planet but that would be entirely irrelevant as to the subject's Wikinotability. Notability in our everyday lives is not the same as notability in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TEXTBOOKS - it's obviously not a textbook but serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public seems to apply. There's a lot of mentions of the book (like [49]) that wouldn't meet NBOOK#1, but I think are sufficient here. We have an article on Yellow Pages Group, and this seems similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a single profile in a reliable source at this point. The link you posted with the passing mention suggests the book's information is unreliable, weakening its notability IMHO. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Power~enwiki: But you haven't given a single solid quality independent reliable source. I don't find the "lots of mentions" that you say except in a few (and it is still a few) lower grade web sites. I can't find a single strong high quality RS on this subject. And a notable Who's Who of Canada should be appearing in every major Canadian newspaper etc. But I can find none except for the single link you offer, which I don't think is a major RS. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was considering nominating this myself, but these two sources [50] [51] gave me pause. Honestly undecided at this point. – Teratix ₵ 06:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the Who's Who info in the first link, but the second is OK. Interestingly again an article about how unreliable it is as a publisher of facts. We'd never let a company article on the site with only 1 or 2 pieces from decades ago. I also worry that if the article stays, it will seem that Wikipedia is somehow validating the book, giving it the appearance of notability, and people might start using it as a source for the unverified information it contains. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the first source, the info starts in the fourth paragraph. – Teratix ₵ 01:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show the article unless I register for an account. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little green arrow which I can click on to see the full article without registering. The relevant parts of the article are The Ottawa press gallery of the London Times ... published a neat red volume called The Canadian Who's Who in May 1910. ... The sketches were quite brief, but Peterborough, with at least 40 entries, seemed well-represented. Obviously there's more than that, but I don't want to quote too much per WP:COPYQUOTE. The rest is an examination of the entries related to Peterborough and a short conclusion where the author compares reading the book to using the internet.

I absolutely agree that the book is unreliable and Wikipedia shouldn't be validating it – the solution to that is to rewrite the article using the new sources which show its unreliability. (Incidentally, the bulk of the current text has been contributed by a WP:SPA operating on the publisher's request. [52] It's been edited, but some of it is still there).

On the other hand, even with the new articles sourcing is still quite slim. – Teratix ₵ 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Who's Who of notable Canadians is surely notable, and probably has fewer Canadian names in it than does Wikipedia. However, the article needs more sources and references (as it stands, it only has one reference, and this is to the book's own website). Vorbee (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vorbee AfDs are not decided votes or statements, but on providing significant independent verifable reliable sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vorbee, you're suggesting to Keep the article but your reasons for that justify Deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm hoping a closer will recognize that there are no policy-based arguments or sufficient sourcing to suggest a keep. This simply doesn't meet the same standard we'd hold any BLP or company article to; rather, notability is being confused with familiarity of the Who's Who brand name, which is in the public domain. From what we've seen so far, the book is filled with unverified, self-written articles from people who buy the book to show that they are in it. I don't think there's evidence that this particular version warrants a content fork/carve out from the main Who's Who article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am rather confused about this proposal. There are several other articles about Who's Who in a particular country, such as UK, Australia and France. So, in what way is this article different from the others, or should we be looking at a group proposal for all "Who's Who in X"? at this point, I think this article could be improved, but I am inclined to say "Keep" unless we delete all the others and I see no reason to delete the ones I have looked at. --Bduke (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Who's Who, although making use of the same Who's Who concept as other publications such as Who's Who (UK), is not otherwise related to them. So there is no obligation to keep or delete all for the sake of consistency – it comes down to whether the sourcing meets WP:GNG or perhaps WP:NBOOK. – Teratix ₵ 12:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: I'm just focused on this one for now, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is not inherited, but I worry that people are confusing having heard of the Who's Who series with notability of every book with that name. With a single source mentioning the book, it could go on the list of Who's Who books on that page, but doesn't warrant its own article. That's the crux of the issue. From what I've seen participating in AfDs, there are few other books or companies or people whose articles would survive AfD with such insufficient sourcing. BTW - this is the notability criteria for books. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. #1 is the only one that could possibly apply here, and I don't see a single article where the book is the subject - only where it is briefly mentioned in conjunction with another subject. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of most of what you say, but several matters are not clear. Are all the others related to each other? If so, the same sources can be used and the Canadian one might be an outlier, but it is still doing the same job. I would not know where to look for sources, but it seems possible that we are missing sources for this Who's Who. --Bduke (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All very good questions, and the difficulty we have finding the answers points to less notability rather than more. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: As I mentioned above, the Canadian Who's Who is not related to the others apart from the essential Who's Who concept. Who's Who is a genre, akin to, say, science fiction. Even though science fiction itself is notable, and many science fiction books are notable, that doesn't mean any given science fiction book is notable. – Teratix ₵ 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: The links to other Who's Who distracted me initially; but when I stuck to finding several significant independent RS on this particular subject per the rules, I came up short (per my nomination to Delete below). It is not by accident this article has no independent material RS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge as there does seem to be a lack of sourcing. However, editors above have aptly pointed out that other notability factors may apply because of the type of topic, and so it seems the matter isn't as simple as the general notability guideline. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If there are no sources, we delete. There are no two ways about it. As to the existence of the Who's Who franchise, it does not by itself justify an automatic inclusion in Wikipedia of any related article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per The Gnome. There are policies around notability on WP and this publication does not meet them; not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comment by The Gnome. This is no textbook, the article is unsourced. Ifnord (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Delete. I came to this article expecting a Keep but there are almost no significant RS on this publication (or site) to support WP:GNG. This article has existed for over a decade, and not a single material independent RS has been added. References quoted above like this MacLean's, and this Perterborough Examiner are not enough as they are not about Who's Who, but just refer to it (we are not questioning existance, but notability). This Canadian journalist's blog is the only actual article on Canadian Who's Who but it is not acceptable for WP as an RS; it does explain why the publication was doomed, as you pay your subscription and write your own bio (the reason why it ended up in the MacLean's article above). Media-type GNG cases should be straightforward to prove, as by definition being in the media sector, they should throw up lots of RS. Hardly a single major Canadian newspaper or Canadian television network seems to be interested in the Canadian Who's Who? This has almost nothing in terms of a GNG RS, and certainly when the requirement for "several" significant indepenent RS is added, it is a clear fail. Britishfinance (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing of substance is out there to support its notability. All we have supporting inclusion are variations of WP:ILIKEIT. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works...")[53][54] Lourdes 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first reference is to the book itself (it used to be published by TUP), the second reference is a brief mention in the 1998 book of Canadian Trivia. The Canadian Who's Who I'm afraid has not been the "subject" of two independent published works. It has not been the "subject" of any independent published works (that I could find). Notability, especially in the media space, should be straightforward. I don't think we should be relying on such arguments. Britishfinance (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the first reference printed by University of British Columbia Press with extensive coverage of the book is the book "Canadian Who's Who" itself? Are you saying that the 400 words published about Canadian Who's Who in the national trivia book by Dundurn Press is "a brief mention"?!! What are you saying? And here's a third book review by Sources.com; it's a full page, before you say "a brief mention" again.[55] This is apart from the fact that The Chicago Manual of Style considers The Canadian Who's Who amongst their recommended list of biography sources ("...a starting point for writers, editors, and others involved in publishing ... they reflect the specific demands of different disciplines and the evolving traditions of writing, editing, and publishing."[56] To belabour the point, there are many citations to the book on scholar.google.com.[57] Lourdes 01:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources.com is clearly unreliable. See [58], organisations pay for their profile. – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That page is about Sources members, who can get profile news releases released like here, which is clearly demarcated. Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the listed sources above is the type of in-depth coverage of the book that we'd expect in order to show notability. When was it first published? Who owns it and started it? What's the history? None of that coverage exists despite numerous attempts by the many experienced editors here to find it. Everything points to a merge and redirect to the Who's Who article as an example of the genre that isn't notable on its own. A single line there should suffice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK requires two book reviews, not a historical analysis. The review needs to be only an editorial review of contents, not of who owned it, what's the history etcetera. You're confusing GNG with NBOOK. For your benefit, NBOOK goes like this: "This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." Can you believe it, "bestseller lists"?! (The book is listed as amongst being most successful of all times in its category.)[59] I didn't make the guideline, but it works. Here's another book review from The Globe and Mail.[60] Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a reference work that was historically widely available in Canadian libraries, and is now available to libraries as an online subscription (making it hard to track current holdings). A cumulative index published in 1986 is still held by 131 libraries, not all in Canada and mostly major academic libraries, enough to make a reference book notable. For many years the work was published by the University of Toronto Press. References include an article written by a writer for a major Canadian newspaper (not a blog but an online copy of a 1998 newspaper column) as well as listings in books of Canadian reference sources for libraries. It has enough published sources combined with library holdings as a reference work to warrent an article, much as does the Marquis Who's Who article. Both publications use the same business model, which gives rise to the critical newspaper articles about them. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:17, 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 keep. Would be SNOW if it wasnt for the delete vote. General consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of European automobiles

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

With thousands of entries, this list would become rather unwieldy and unpractical if it was only halfway complete. Note that this list includes more than just the individual models, e.g. for the Lamborghini Countach you get five entries. We already have individual, long timelines for separate brands, e.g. List of Fiat passenger cars. Fram (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but if this article is kept, it would need a re-write - as it stands, this article seems mostly to be about Lamborghinis. Vorbee (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and... it's not going to be all about Lamborghinis, I plan to fill it out with other cars. Of course, I'm going to re-write it. But only after I get each and every brand out onto the timeline... If it's that much of a bother, DGG told me he would put it in my user space and I can work on it somemore (without anymore trouble I hope?). Please don't delete my page, I want to fill it out to the best of my abilities. HizppaN (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2019 (MYT)
Keep -- butt he first step would probably be to userify and draftify until other brands can be added. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt actually give the reader anything but a timeline of car introduction from some unconnected countries, the reader would be better using Category:Cars by year of introduction. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By good reasoning of wp:CLNT, if there is a category it makes sense for there to be a list-article, which can include photos and references and redlinks and other material that a category cannot convey. --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CLNT, "Disadvantages of a list" #6: "Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable". Which is the reason for this AfD nomination. Fram (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is far more useful than a category since more information can be placed on it. Far easier to navigate, you able to see things by years, and even see what the first and last year they were produced there. Perfect valid list article since it has plenty of blue links and aids in navigation to those articles. Dream Focus 16:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has really expanded since the time of the deletion nomination. [61]. Dream Focus 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With the additional references, consensus appears to indicate notability. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ölander

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

Article, completely unreferenced for ten full years without improvement, about a person notable primarily for "bridge-building between far-flung corners of international fandom". This could get him into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any sources for it. Bearcat (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - I can't find anything on this guy.~~ Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman5676: I've started adding some information. What's been written about Ölander in English has typically been published in print; the available sources I'm aware of online are in Finnish or Swedish, for good reasons. /Julle (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is still a stub and fairly poor quality, i think you have provided enough to keep the article from being deleted. I also managed to find a mention of him in the book Science Fiction Rebels here [62]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of all sources will be in Finnish, some in Swedish, but there are some available in English as well. w:fi:Toni Jerrman wrote an essay called "It All Started with Tom Ölander" in the souvenir book for the 75th World Science Fiction Convention, which I don't have access to now but will have again in a couple of weeks. (The reference to Mike Ashley's work that I've added is more of a passing mention.) In other languages than English – in addition to what Leena Peltonen wrote in in Aikakone, and Ahrvid Engholm's obituary in Dagens Nyheter, both added as sources, Juhani Hinkkanen wrote another longer text about Ölander in Aikakone back when he died, and just for contextualisation I think this text from the Turku Science Fiction Society is worth reading. /Julle (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference to Jerrman's text now. /Julle (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This is a supposedly notable person in Finnland, yet the Finnish Wikipedia does not have anything on him. (Yes, I know. I'm simply pointing it out.) -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of things Finnish Wikipedia, being a mid-sized wiki (English Wikipedia has 72 times the number of active editors), doesn't have articles on yet. /Julle (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely irrelevant. It is reasonable to expect many articles in the English Wikipedia not to have their counterpart in the Finnish one. But we're talking about a subject that's supposedly notable (per Wikipedia's standards) in Finnland and not in the English-speaking world. Yet, there is no entry in the Finnish Wikipedia about him. Do you happen to have some explanation for that? Sizes don't matter! -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Size does matter – and is an important part of the explanation – in that article creation is far slower. I don't know how much cross-wiki article creation experience you have, but this is hardly unique. There are phenomena in Finland that lack articles in Finnish but have them in English, partly because you'll find editors from Finland who'll opt to edit in a more widely spoken language (e.g. English) instead of Finnish. There are Icelandic writers who have articles in Swedish Wikipedia but not in Icelandic, not because they lack notability but because Swedish Wikipedia has 20 times the number of editors, and sometimes that matters more than being the most likely language. Etc etc. Also, notability is global; a subject not more or less notable because one is active in a specific language area – it is notable or not. We're writing a global encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Additionally, it's a stretch to assume that only the Finns should care: the sources in this article include a British writer (Mike Ashley (writer)) published by a British publisher (Cambridge University Press) and a Swedish newspaper (Dagens Nyheter).

(Also, Finland is bilingual. The country has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish.) /Julle (talk) 11:21, 13 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. After extensive discussion, there is still no agreement whether to keep or delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sakharova

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography created by the subject of the article; few references, dubiously notable. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found https://music.umsl.edu/Faculty/juliasakharova.html that shows she is an assistant professor of music, violin at the University of Missouri, Saint Louis. https://www.allmusic.com/album/rachmaninoff-the-%C3l%C3%A9giaque-piano-trios-mw0001417099 shows one notable work. She does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a delete. The sources are passing mentions of the subject. Most are not significant coverage of the subject. Where there is significant coverage of the subject, it is not independent of the subject. This means that GNG is not met. MUSICBIO is still not met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: If MUSICBIO is still not met in your view, please explain how it doesn’t meet #5 and #6. Thanks, Zingarese talk · contribs 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - 5. "Has released two or more albums" implies that the subject has released the album. She was a player as a member of an ensemble on an album. 6. "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" The subject is not an ensemble and "or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" none of the ensembles she has been in have stand-alone articles. There is not enough information in the secondary sources to create a bio article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - With that said, I'll ask two editors who regularly find sources and discuss AfDs about music-related subjects to weigh-in (whether on my interpretation of MUSICBIO or on the notability of the subject is up to them): @Michig: and @Sergecross73:. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ms. Sakharova is currently the 2nd violinist of the acclaimed Arianna String Quartet and in this role recorded the opus 18 and middle period string quartets of Beethoven on the Centaur Records label. Jerry Dubins of Fanfare magazine hailed the recording of the middle quartets as "the greatest performances" of the quartets "in recorded history". This season, the quartet will record the late quartets to finish their complete Beethoven cycle. Also, Sakharova also served as the assistant concertmaster of the Alabama Symphony Orchestra for some time, as well as a member of Albany Symphony Orchestra. I think she passes WP:MUSICBIO #5 and #6 as such. I am also somewhat taken by surprise the the Arianna Quartet does not even have an article - they have been reviewed by NY Times, Chicago Tribune and more, and released numerous albums on major labels... But not every single subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines has its own article, and I think this will continue to be the case. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I just created an article for the Arianna String Quartet. But the comment above that “none” of the ensembles she was previously in have stand-alone articles was not even true when it was made. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't? Which of her ensembles have articles? Which do? Clearly I'm missing it so rather than offering vague assurance that they have articles, you can show them. At least we have a redirect target now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Albany Symphony Orchestra, where she was a member for some time, and Alabama Symphony Orchestra, where she served as assistant concertmaster.Zingarese talk · contribs 00:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Albany is not listed on her article. So we don't have "ensembles" we have a singular ensemble. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some references to the article (more could no doubt be found), and started a Discography section, to which the Arianna String Quartet recordings could be added. I think she meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, at least, and WP:GNG. (It's clear from the edit history that most of what was written by the subject of the article was deleted, and it has been rewritten by other editors since then, with information from cited sources.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 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) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also pinging Walter Görlitz since some sources have been found since the vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree per above, and IMO:meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, most sources are reliable....passes GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone point out to me the third party sources that provide significant coverage on the subject? Not the groups she’s in, but the person herself. There’s a pretty broad consensus that if a musician is only discussed on the context of her respective groups or bands, then that’s how they should be represented on Wikipedia - in the article of the groups, not in her own article. Unless someone can point these out, these keep votes look more like WP:ITSNOTABLE violations and I’d be in favor of deletion or redirecting the article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating stance to Delete upon the lack of evidence forindependent notability. Still fine with a redirect if there’s an agreed upon target. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be more coverage in non-English sources given her origin, but it seems she has been based in the West for most of her career, so maybe not. I didn't find much that isn't already cited in the article. An article in Double Bassist (Google News, article not viewable online) appears to show that she won a prize at the 2003 Jeunesses Musicales Montreal International Competition (presumably a junior competition), and one from The Instrumentalist states that she won first prize at the 47th Olga Koussevitzky Competition for Strings and was a finalist in another competition. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:NMUSICIAN. Not enough sources verifying subject's independent notabiity have been identified, yet many editors are apparently reluctant to suggest deletion on account of sources supposedly existing in another language. It's revealing that in the effort to Keep the article (whose creator is the subject herself), editors have been creating peripheral articles, e.g. about ensembles she has played in. Anyone still not convinced can go through the list of musicians' notability criteria and check them out. Also do check out the subject's article in the Wikipedia of her native language. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I only created Arianna String Quartet because it is clearly independently notable - one of the finest American string quartets - and a Wikipedia entry does not exist for it! It doesn’t have anything to do with me engaging “in the effort to keep the article”. The articles for Albany Symphony Orchestra and Alabama Symphony Orchestra have already existed for 50 years. However, I continue to stand by my claim that she meets WP:MUSICBIO #6. #5 has been challenged because her recordings have all been chamber music recording; I can concede it might not meet that criterion as such. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any proof it is "one of the finest American string quartets"? I have never heard of them. I have heard of the Kronos Quartet and several others in Category:American string quartets (Del Sol Quartet, Esterhazy Quartet, Juilliard String Quartet, LaSalle Quartet and New World String Quartet) so by what qualification are they "one of the finest"? Also, Wikipedia has not existed for 50 years, so how have their articles existed for 50 years? My impression is that you're using exaggeration, or possibly just hyperbole, to make your case. Emperical statements are easier to verify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Walter Görlitz: The Arianna String Quartet was the winner of the Fischoff International Chamber Music Competition in the United States in 1994, one of the largest competitions for chamber ensemble in the world and certainly the largest in America. Since then, critics have raved about Arianna; the Chicago Tribune wrote that they "make music with the tonal warmth, fastidious balance, and heightened communication skills of groups many years its senior", and of their recording of Beethoven's middle quartets, Fanfare magazine said: "I am prepared to state and defend my belief that these may just be the greatest performances of Beethoven’s middle quartets in recorded history." Of course, the "50 years" statement was hyperbole; The Gnome accused me of "creating peripheral articles" when the article about Arianna was the only one I created, which I did only because they are independently significant per the notability guidelines. (There are many other chamber ensembles out there that are also independently notable per MUSICBIO and GNG but don't have articles.) The Albany and Alabama articles have existed for many years. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - A major competition? How many other quartets have won that award (and who are they)? How much publicity did winning that award garner for them? Clearly they have some local coverage. but has BBC Music Magazine (or a similar publication) done a feature article on them? Has NPR made them a feature performer for any period of time? The underlying problem is that classical music gets very little recognition precisely because there is little interest in the field and few notable performers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even beyond that, do we have any evidence of Julia’s independent notability? To illustrate what I mean, let’s look at other media. We can go on and on about the awards Black Panther (film) or Call of Duty may win, that doesn’t make every single of their hundreds of staff members are notable and deserving of their own separate article. Same applies here. If every notable thing she does is in the context of a group she’s in, then you haven’t established the need for a separate article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 14 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) 21:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mercer

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

Advertorially-slanted WP:BLP of a sportsman and television host, referenced entirely to his own primary source content about himself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own websites verify that they exist -- the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia hinges on whether media can be shown to have done journalism about him, not on what he publishes about himself. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete My search for sources didn't give me anything to show he meets the GNG. The fact that he has a TV show would indicate some notability and I would change my vote if someone could show me some significant independent coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Small

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person notable only for being "involved" in organizing and promoting local events. This could get him an article if he could be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a poorly referenced article just because he exists or existed. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Sascachuwan Agricultural Hall of Fame reference is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 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) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Article been around for over a decade and still only a single line. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this entirely unsourced small stub of a bio. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 05:49, 13 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Moncarz

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

WP:BLP of a record producer, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable sources. There are claims here that could get him an article if they were referenced properly, but nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to be referenced properly -- but the only "referencing" here is his own primary source profile on the website of his own management agency, not reliable source coverage about him in media. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 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) 09:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find a single reference to him on any of the main Canadian media outlets (tv, radio, newspapers). Unlikely he is going to meet test of "several" RS. Britishfinance (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NPERSON, WP:NCREATIVE, and WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 05:48, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Saeed (entrepreneur)

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and has received press coverage for a single event (Khan Meter) thus falls under Wikipedia:BLP1E.

This promotional bio was created by the subject himself using Salluhee (talk · contribs) - The same name he used for his official website (www.salluhee.com).

Previously this bio was deleted twice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed. Saqib (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Needs to be deleted immediately. A non-notable figure with a history of creating articles on himself. Skirts89 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for (self-)promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as self-promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looks like an autobiography of someone who lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. I'd say WLP:1E applies since the only notable thing appears to be the "Khan meter".Sandals1 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional bio. samee converse 23:36, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anzela Abbasi

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

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

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't inherited; maybe WP:TOOSOON. samee converse 23:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samee: Will you please explain how, instead of just giving vote? 77.243.187.60 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Actress playing leading and supporting roles since two years (then how Too Soon)? She has 3 projects Gila, Baby and Main Haar Nahi Manoun Gi in which she appeared in main roles for which she passes WP:ENT, She also passes GNG by little margin considering [63] this source from reputed news The Express Tribune as well as this [64] from Business Recorder and others avail in article. Article is well sourced and every single information is verified by reputable source. 196.62.192.100 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Passing mentions in press release are not significant coverage. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors career is equally important like significant coverage. What about multiple roles she has played? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.187.60 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:The GNG and notability for actors as actor has to passed only one notability criteria whether GNG or NACTOR, She is passing WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.187.60 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Note to closing admin: None of the delete voters have made policy based arguments instead saying Fails Notability and its WP:TOO SOON without giving any explanations. 77.243.187.60 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doubts are already answered by experienced user here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/881237668 77.243.187.60 (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR, with major roles in three blue-linked TV shows ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable .. television shows". RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've no idea why this has caused such dissension. It's a clear-cut satisfaction for WP:NACTOR criterion 1 as already noted. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 6 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 List of Victoria's Secret models. Per WP:ATD and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Laine

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

While I think this qualifies as an A7 speedy deletion, I’d rather not jump the gun. Now, as far as I’m aware, The Sun is banned as a “source” on this website like the Daily Mail is. And that’s the only source given here. A marijuana possession arrest is not only uneventful and trivial, but it uncontestably DOES NOT contribute to notability (the tag has been there since the article was created). This article does not present any career for this model (no... a slideshow of pictures from the VS Fashion Show isn’t it at all), only one job, and it’s been impossible for me to find any legitimate source for her. Let’s be honest: this as Too Soon. Trillfendi (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 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) 10:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Victoria's Secret Fashion Show~~ List of Victoria's Secret models per WP:ATD-R; a functional search term. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it went that route, List of Victoria's Secret models would be a more apt destination. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hutchison

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. The closest thing to a notability claim here is that she's recorded and/or performed with various other artists, but most of the ones named aren't independently notable either (they're either members of bands or session musicians), and notability is not inherited anyway. And for "sourcing", all that's present here at all is her self-published website and the self-published website of one of her collaborators, which is not valid support for notability. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more reliable source coverage in real media than she's got. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no good sources in the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator has made a convincing case. The article appears to be an attempted promotion for a musician who might be good at what she does, but has not gained sufficient media notice to satisfy WP's notability requirements. All sources found are typical self-published bios and retail/streaming lists. Also note that there are other people of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Goliath

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

Article about a television documentary, not properly referenced as having any notability claim that would pass WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because IMDb offers technical verification that it exists -- but there's no notability claim here beyond the fact that it exists, and the only reference present besides the IMDb profile is a deadlinked TV Guide listing. That's not enough to make a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFilm. I cannot find any independent, reliable references besides IMDB and it seems to have been made by an SPA. While the article seems to attempt to pass the criteria of "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" there is no credible claim to this that I can find. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, fails NFilm - can't find any reviews in any independent RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Facing Goliath was aired internationally, in 116 countries, via Al Jazeera's program, titled "Witness" and is also widely available online. It was also listed on links to TV guide boards, back dated to the date of airing. These sights have not maintained old programming schedules and the links have gone dead, but it does not change the fact that the film had an international television audience. It does not make sense that the loss of programming links could invalidate the listing of the film here. Links were placed here over a decade ago to prove these points and some of them still point to the films validity on IMDB. Are films invalidated any time a long standing link to a program board goes dead, even when the film is still n wide circulation on the web? The loss of those links shouldn't alter the 10 year history of this entry. The listing is still valid. Abandond (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandond Please take a look at WP:NFILM. Criterion 1 requires that the film was widely distributed, and that it has received full-length reviews from two or more nationally recognised critics. You are saying that it was widely distributed, but you haven't addressed the reviews - if you can find those, there would be an argument to keep the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to reference its existence to IMDb and a television listings grid was never evidence of its notability in the first place. The notability of a film is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about the film in sources it isn't directly affiliated with, such as recognized film critics reviewing it and/or journalism being done about its production, not by indiscriminate film directories or TV Guide. As nice as it would be to have enough quality information out there to write and maintain a solid, well-sourced article about every single film that's ever existed at all, it's not Wikipedia's mandate to privilege the "every single film that's ever existed" part of the equation over the "solid and well-sourced" part — we keep articles about films that can be shown to clear WP:NFILM by getting media coverage about them, and don't keep articles about films that can't. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also may be worth mentioning that in the ten years since their account was created, Abandond has only ever edited this article, or the article that used to exist on Sebastian MacLean, who appeared in the film. Nothing inherently wrong with that, perhaps they are a big fan, but if they have a particular connection with this film, they ought to declare it per WP:COI. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratial

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

Fails WP:GNG Sitush (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete similar to Bajju Rajput. samee converse 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any references to this term. Article has no references (definate case for "draftication" regardless). Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is just a line and no reference , Alex-h (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A custom source search provided this source, published in 1940 by "Government Printing" (link), but this may be a British Raj source, which some on Wikipedia consider to be unreliable regarding clans and tribes. Not sure, because I cannot access the minuscule preview of the title page of the source in a larger size to actually read it. This search provides more sources with snippet views. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a reprint of Lepel Griffin's Chief and Families of Note in the Punjab from ca. 1909. Like most British writers of the Raj era who published about castes/clans etc, he was an amateur in the sphere of ethnography and an administrator by profession. Their aim in writing these books was to document for the purposes of controlling the population for the benefit of empire. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's an evidently obscure subject that fails the criteria of verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per the above, as well as failing WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 13 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) 05:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Myatt

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

A radio presenter who doesn't appear to satisfy GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. The one ref in the article is actually for another Tony Myatt who doesn't have an article and based upon W:Before is actually more notable. Szzuk (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual.--N Ø 17:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of securing his inclusion in Wikipedia, but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him being shown to get him over WP:GNG. I believe this is the first time I've ever seen a Wikipedia article whose only reference was sitting on the hatnote as evidence of the existence of somebody other than the article subject — and even that really shouldn't be there at all, because people who don't have Wikipedia articles to link to do not get disambiguatory hatnotes to distinguish themselves from people who do. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fleck

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

WP:BLP of a person with no genuinely strong claim of notability. The main things here are that he worked as a television host and was an unsuccessful election candidate -- but unsuccessful election candidates do not pass WP:NPOL, and the hosting stuff is half unverifiable (I can find zero media coverage indicating that Project X ever actually aired at all — which doesn't necessarily mean it didn't, but does mean that even if it did it still isn't notable) and half definitely-false (he did host one individual documentary that aired as a standalone episode of The Nature of Things, but was never the primary host of the actual series as this claimed he was until I poleaxed it as lies.) Literally none of this is "inherently" notable at all, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates for political office are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's got a number of potential "hooks" but I don't see anything presumptive or anything which passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been substantially worked on during the course of the AfD, so I'm giving higher weight to the chronologically later comments, all of which are keeps. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 1902

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

The article has no content. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author) - I disagree with deletion. There is content in both articles, and there is far more content than many other starter articles. Just because this article will never be filled with a picture of the license plate from all 50 states is not a reason for deletion. This is part of a series of 119 articles that show the annual history of license plates in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia. To remove this article would remove part of the early history of the automobile industry, individual state history of how vehicle license plates evolved across the country, and what has become an area of collector activity. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per my staement here. Nightfury 09:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything from 1901 to 1905; rather than having a table showing no actual plate designs and indicating the need for owners to supply their own, have a table indicating the date at which these requirements were initiated. bd2412 T 15:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per bd2412. There's simply no sign of this being a topic that justifies per-year articles for these dates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been on line for less than 30 days, and some additional material has been added since the article was listed here. Leaving the article will give other editors the ability to add new information and keep the series of articles intact back to its true beginnings rather than try and force the material into a merged article. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD really is not the best way to sort out this kind of problem. Breaking a series of set list articles by deleting one page would be utterly confusing to our readers. We had a similar issue with the sunspots by year pages a while back; the early years were pretty empty. It turned out though, as more editors took a look, that there was something notable to say about every year and afair no page ended up deleted. Having said that, formatting the page as a table that is guaranteed to stay largely empty forever (because plates weren't issued in those states) is not good. But this is best resolved by normal editing and talk page discussion. Some sort of merge of the early years as suggested by BD2412 is one solution (not the only one) but I think merging up to 1905 is too far. That one at least has one image and the potential for a lot more. Same can be said for 1904. SpinningSpark 08:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the 1901 article has been accepted, deleting the 1902 article does not make sense. Material is slowly being found and added. The 1903 article now has two photos. Similar to the sunspot articles mentioned above, as others discover the articles more material is likely to be added. Zcarstvnz (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Zcarstvnz (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For reference, the sunsport AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle 1. SpinningSpark 14:45, 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 keep. There appears to be a general consensus against deleting. However the merge proposals were insufficiently specific, so I am going to call this a Keep and discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article talk pages. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 1901

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

The article has no content. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article, and the 1902 version, does say something - it says that New York required car owners to produce their own plates, and that the other states had nothing. Whether this is sufficient to warrant an article, I cannot say - but removing it will imply either that New York started their plate organization in 1903, or that the states that did start their organization in 1903 started it earlier than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCOBOL (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with deletion. There is content in both articles, and there is far more content than many other starter articles. Just because these articles will never be filled with a picture of the license plate from all 50 states is not a reason for deletion. This is part of a series of 119 articles that show the annual history of license plates in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia. To remove this article would remove the early history of the automobile industry, individual state history of how vehicle license plates evolved across the country, and what has become an area of collector activity. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The OP has jumped the gun a bit as the page was only created 12 days ago, would recommend moving to draftspace for article creator to work on it before moving pack to article space. Nightfury 09:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything from 1901 to 1905; rather than having a table showing no actual plate designs and indicating the need for owners to supply their own, have a table indicating the date at which these requirements were initiated. bd2412 T 15:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per bd2412. There's simply no sign of this being a topic that justifies per-year articles for these dates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the early 1900s ones. I think it might be better if we have one page for all years and then create some sort of a template that contains all of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been on line for less than 30 days, and some additional material has been added since the article was listed here. Leaving the article will give other editors the ability to add new information and keep the series of articles intact back to its true beginnings rather than try and force the material into a merged article. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:16, 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 keep. Notability asserted (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Marie Marcelin Gilibert

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. » Shadowowl | talk 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. We would need a few scholarly works on the Colombian police to show that his role in their formation has been recognized as significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Could possibly be redirected to History of the Colombian National Police~~ - that article is currently unsourced, but there are newspaper articles on the history of Colombia's police force [65], [66], [67], academic papers [68] and a pamphlet written by a university professor and published by the Banco de la República, which is effectively the keeper of the national historical archives [69]. The question is whether any of these sources really provide any in-depth biographical detail about Gilibert, and if he is really just known for this WP:ONEEVENT. Richard3120 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources located by Richard3120 need to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the sources in order (nb., this is based on the machine translation)
- First El Tiempo article: Two paras of coverage about Gilibert, borderline for notability.
- Second El Tiempo article: Three paras with lots of biographical info, definite significant coverage.
- El Heraldo - passing mention, not SIGCOV.
- Academic paper - I don't have access to this and cannot assess it. Based on its subject matter (the establishing of the Colombian National Police) it seems likely that it would cover Gilibert's role in some depth though.
- The Banco national article - I am having trouble assessing whether this is or is not a blog. The listing as "Credential No. 23" for the article suggests it may be part of some kind of publication. In terms of content it is clearly significant coverage.
Based on the above I lean Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST FOARP (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS - These sources found using the name "Marcelino Gilibert" should also be considered. It seems Gilibert was known by the Spanish version of his name, which may have complicated the BEFORE work for other searchers: 1 2 3 4. I'd say that WP:BASIC is met.FOARP (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update - "Credential Historia" is the name of a Colombian magazine, the full name of which is "La revista credential historia", and which is nowadays known as "Revista Credential", so the Banco National article is from what appears to be an RS for Colombian history. As well as founding the Colombian National Police, Gilibert also appears to have played a role in the riots in Bogota in 1893 and uncovered a number of coup plots, so WP:ONEVENT does not apply. I've done my best to re-write the article and I hope it is satisfactory. PS - it is only when you consider that Colombia actually had a civil war in 1895 and this is not even mentioned on the timeline of Colombian history on Wiki, nor is there an article about it, that you realise how much stuff there is left to write about here. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: thank you FOARP, I think there's definitely enough here now to keep the article, passing WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Gold

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

No evidence of notability, and practically all sourcing can be merged with 2018_double-spend_attacks_on_Equihash-based_cryptocurrencies. I cleaned up a significant portion of the article as well as added reliable sources, however I seriously question if it's even close to WP:GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically Bitcoin Gold had a market capitalization of several billion dollars, and it is one of the major forks of Bitcoin. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things are enough to keep it. See WP:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV which had a "market capitalization" over $2 billion at one point. Џ 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Coverage when it launched in Fortune, CNBC, and Ars Technica. Coverage of its attack in Fortune and ZDNet. Articles in ZDNetand Business Review Romania about its Bittrex delisting. Џ 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these sources might merit a keep. I'm unsure about the reliability of Buisness Review Romania, simply because I've never heard of it before, but the rest certainly checks out. Dr-Bracket (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Balkywrest (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient RS as noted above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal - it's utterly unimportant even in the world of cryptocurrencies, but it's had some RS mention - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; launch publicity does not translate to encyclopedic notability in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Bitcoin. Vorbee (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In particular, the date of the fork is useful. If the value of it continues to drop though, it will be of less interest in future. HighlyIrregular (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced, as well as bitcoin is a very important thing we must know about today, and any information that we can have on it would be good. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:02, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food First Information and Action Network

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

This article was created several years ago, and aside from several good faith promotional edits (resulting in an unusually large revert on my part), bot edits, and Wikignoming, has remained largely abandoned. I haven't found any sources on Google. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding FIAN International: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: I found some indication of their involvement in events associated with the Committee on World Food Security ( [70], [71]) but notability is not inherited and FIAN does not seem close enough to CFS to make Redirect an option. There is also a joint submission to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights with Via Campesina ([72]), but not enough to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 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) 10:21, 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. General consensus. No prejudice on renomination. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Village

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

Fails WP:NBUILD; appears to be a run-of-the-mill commercial complex of no historic, architectural, or sociological note. Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article already has reliable sources coverage and is a significant structure in its locale. Most buildings are run of the mill to some extent but if they have received reliable sources coverage they are usually included and this structure is significant enough to be notable and should be kept, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the necessary depth of coverage. The only sources are local newspaper articles discussing routine zoning-type agenda items before the planning commission and city council, which one would expect from any commercial development in Los Angeles County given the way its local government bureaucracy works. I don't see this as sufficient to demonstrate an encyclopedic level of notability. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a neighborhood in Manhattan Beach, not simply a commercial mall. It was the last empty-space neighborhood to be developed in the city. Go here for articles. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1985 the area got much newspaper space when methane gas was discovered leaking there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Paris explosion

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

The article was swiftly created hours after the incident was reported, possibly due to the tensions in the Paris area, so one might argue that it was reasonable to think that it might have been related to the Yellow Vests movement. But since we now know that it is very likely that the explosion was caused by a gas leak, and since there's nothing about the incident that could cause notable lasting effects, I don't think it deserves article status at this time. lovkal (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - More information may come overtime. Also has plenty sources and could be expanded. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This explosion killed four people & injured many others. It also caused a great deal of damage and disruption. Despite it apparently being an accident, it's likely that health & safety rules, laws, inspections will be improved as a result. Jim Michael (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in line with other Gas explosion's with their own page and ones from 10 years ago still hold water. A quick search convinced me that we might expect legal and social repercussions from such an event. For me its notability is in the context of terror attack fears, but the page rightly? does not go into that. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Weak Keep I think Jim Michael mentioned some good points here and the lack of quoting any wiki-policy in the nomination is not helping. As new evidence comes to light and new citations are added that builds WP:GNG. The gas explosion was pretty well cover by UK media and I am sure this will create a domino effect towards other issues, outcomes. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important discussion. User:Lucifero4
Keep it is notable enough, and additional information should come up in the future. A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 20:56, 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 Council of Graduate Schools. Mz7 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Master's in Social Sciences and Humanities

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

Uninformative, unreferenced and no claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Council of Graduate Schools - it's not a very good article, either, but at least all of its programs would be in one place. If not merged, then I have no issue with deletion. Risker (talk) 03:13, 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 02:30, 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) 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Council of Graduate Schools. Other article is not certainly big but requires some cleanup. Merging this article will be an improvement. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. L. Hunley JROTC Award

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

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG for several reasons: a. I am unable to find any sources for it outside of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Page b. It also is not an official JROTC award, further throwing into question its notabilityGaruda28 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per the reasons I have stated above. Garuda28 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t realize, thanks for pointing that out! Garuda28 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JROTC awards are not notable. This is the sole entry in category:Awards and decorations of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Further, this is not an award from the JROTC. Rather, it's an award given by a private heritage organization to its members' children. It is just one of many awards the organization bestows, mostly to its members.[73] All of the citations in the article are sourced to the organization itself. Even on their websites, they only give perfunctory mention of this award. The topic does not qualify for any aspect of WP:GNG. Mobi Ditch (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:02, 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.

[1] Raymond, Kenneth W. (2010). General, organic, and biological chemistry : an integrated approach (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 186. ISBN 9780470504765. Retrieved 29 January 2019.

[1]