Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StraussInTheHouse (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 3 February 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beneath Her Veil. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 2 February 4 February >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath Her Veil

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance, however many editors objected on the basis of WP:TRAINWRECK, so I am nominating the relevant ones individually. SITH (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:32, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell or High Water (2017 film)

Hell or High Water (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance, however many editors objected on the basis of WP:TRAINWRECK, so I am nominating the relevant ones individually. SITH (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really expected this one might be a case for deletion, as it's a 30-minute short film, and American short films get approximately zero media attention. I was wrong. The Pulse source already cited appears to be a reliable source. Here's another full review in a reliable media outlet. And here's a significant review and discussion of the film from Nigerian LGBT media. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Squamish Ossifrage that the Pulse review is helpful, but I was initially going to opine delete until the other two sources were brought forward, as there seems to be little coverage. I'm still on the fence on whether they are enough, however. I'm unfamiliar with the publications, and being LGBT doesn't translate to reliable or notable to me - it could still operate as a gossip blog or tabloid. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, although in this case, the site appears to be a reliable media outlet, and is regularly cited by other Nigerian media concerning its topic of focus (and its role as an LGBT media outlet is germane to this article because of the content of the film in question). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. This was one of the ones I meant not to re-nominate, apologies. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moms at War

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance, however many editors objected on the basis of WP:TRAINWRECK, so I am nominating the relevant ones individually. SITH (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Strip-Tease (TV series). Consensus is against retention, however a valid WP:ATD argument was made. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lamensch

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

Procedural nomination, I PRODed this with the original rationale quoted below however Phil Bridger contested the PROD and suggested if better sourcing couldn't be found, a redirect to Strip-Tease (TV series) could work. I tend to agree but I'd prefer a community discussion than doing it unilaterally. Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO or the relevant subdivisions therein. Most coverage yielded by source searches are interviews aired upon the launch of Strip-tease, but these interviews don't appear to provide significant coverage of Lamensch himself but rather the programme. SITH (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:38, 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens Gerard Malone

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

Declined PROD, pinging DGG as decliner, original reason for nomination quoted below. Despite changes made since PROD nomination I believe the issues per WP:NAUTHOR persist. Source searches reveal no major reviews of Malone's work or sustained critical reception, suggesting he fails WP:NAUTHOR. SITH (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Opinion changed after research by E.M.Gregory below. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Globe and Mail book review is certainly a start toward getting him over WP:GNG, but it doesn't get him to the finish line all by itself as the only source in play — if the notability standard you're shooting for is "notable because he and his books exist", then it takes a lot more than just one reference to get there. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a 2008 comment on the talk page declining a SPEEDY deletion asserts that the article contains a long list of sources. I checked, it did (2008 version [1]), and they were deleted at some point. I haven't checked those old sources, but the book reviews, article listed probably exist, reputable newspapers, and, yeah, the page was probably created in 2008 by Malone or by someone who loves him or his books and copy-pasted from the author bio page linked above by Coolabahapple. But it's Always a good idea to check the talk page and look for mass deletions of material BEFORE a nomination for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I have read this through a couple of times and I can't discern anything resembling a viable consensus. Having been relisted twice, it is time to move on. If there are strong feelings that this should go, I suggest waiting a bit and renominating. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient contract theory

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

Declined PROD, pinging DGG as decliner. Original reason for nomination was Appears to be a neologism generated from original research. SITH (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two previous voters, with respect, appear to be engaging in speculation about what this topic could be without any references supporting their claims. The article reads like telephone tag from a college student's lecture notes. The Lyons reference talks of optimal incentives for both investment and trade, which is entirely different from if a contract exists, then it must be efficient due to survivorship bias in the article. There's nothing verifiable here and this should be deleted outright. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pretty much agree with Power~enwiki. The article as written doesn't do much for anybody. I'd hate to think though that a potentially important topic (or sub-topic of Contract theory) would just be swept away. But given the 3 choices of leaving up the non-article as is, merging to another article, or deletion, I'd choose one of the last 2 choices. Merging might be a case of "merge-to-delete" in any case. I generally take "merge-to-delete" as a fairly devious way of dealing with a problem, so I guess that leaves delete even though there ultimately might be a good article on the topic. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, you missed my reference above. There was no speculation on the Pareto aspect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This almost feels like it is made-up. Can't find any decent references to this term that reflect the description in the article. I am very familiar with Efficient capital markets theory, which this "theory" is trying to mimic, but have never come across "Efficient contract theory". Are we sure this is not a hoax article? Britishfinance (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Donoghue, Mark; Wright, Mark L. J.; Thornton, William Thomas (1997). William T. Thornton on the Economics of Trade Unions: An Early Contribution to Efficient Bargaining Theory. Canberra: Australian National University. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-86831-332-0. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
    2. Shane, Scott (March–April 2001). "Organizational Incentives and Organizational Mortality". Organization Science. 12 (2). Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences: 136–160. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.136.10108. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
    3. Zax, Jeffrey S. (Winter 1989). "Implications for Efficient Contract Theory". Industrial Relations. 28 (1). John Wiley & Sons: 23–31. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1989.tb00720.x. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
    4. Hansen, Robert S. (March 2001). "Do investment banks compete in IPOs?: the advent of the "7% plus contract"". Journal of Financial Economics. Elsevier: 313–346. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00089-1. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Donoghue, Mark; Wright, Mark L. J.; Thornton, William Thomas (1997). William T. Thornton on the Economics of Trade Unions: An Early Contribution to Efficient Bargaining Theory. Canberra: Australian National University. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-86831-332-0. Retrieved 2019-02-10.

      The book notes:

      The catalyst for this renewed interest was the "rediscovery" of the notion of efficient contracts between unions and employers, and particularly the contribution of McDonald and Solow (1981). Efficient contract theory, which is commonly attributed to Leontieff (1946) and Fellner (1947, 1949) but was in fact present in Edgeworth (1881), depicts unions and employers as rational agents negotiating Pareto-efficient bargains covering multiple aspects of the employment relationship. By providing a coherent model in which to view union bargaining, these models solved one of the major theoretical problems identified in Johnson's earlier survey.

      The sources cited are:
      1. Fellner, W. (1947) "Prices and Wages under Bilateral Monopology", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 61 (3), August, 503–532.
      2. Fellner, W. (1949) Competition Among the Few: Oligopoly and Similar Market Structures, Alfred A Knopf, New York.
      3. Leontieff, W. (1946) "The Pure Theory of the Guaranteed Annual Wage Contract", Journal of Political Economy, 54 (1), February, 54 (1), February 76–79.
      4. McDonald, I.M. and R.M. Solow (1981) "Wage Bargaining and Employment", American Economic Review, 71 (5), December 896–908.
      5. Edgeworth, F.Y. (1881) Mathematical Psychics, London
    2. Shane, Scott (March–April 2001). "Organizational Incentives and Organizational Mortality". Organization Science. 12 (2). Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences: 136–160. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.136.10108. Retrieved 2019-02-10.

      The article discusses survorship bias and efficient contract theory:

      According to these researchers, cognitive limits on information-processing capabilities preclude people from designing optimal contracts (Langlois 1992). Moreover, people design contracts of varying quality because of differences in information about how to design efficient contracts. As a result, at any point in time, the efficiency of contract provisions varies across firms, as in the form of a controlled experiment. Because contract provisions are costly to change, and because firms must recognize that policies are flawed before they can change them, those firms unfortunate enough to have selected suboptimal arrangements face a higher risk of failure. Thus, over time, efficient contracts are established because misaligned firms tend to fail, while those with efficient designs tend to survive (Alchian 1950).

      In a section titled "Efficient Contracting Theory", the article notes:

      In recent years, much empirical research has found support for the propositions of efficient contract theory (see Lafontaine and Slade 1997 and Shelanski and Klein 1995 for reviews). In particular, Williamson (1975) and his colleagues (Joskow 1987, Masten 1996) have amassed considerable evidence of transaction-cost-minimizing con-tracts in cross-sectional studies of firms with equilibrium assumptions.

      However, many organizational theorists (e.g., Granovetter 1985), have taken issue with the functionalism of efficient contracting arguments, contending that firms, like all institutions, do not arise automatically in the form that is optimal for external circumstances. In particular, organizational theorists have presented three challenges to efficient contracting theory. First, efficient contract theory assumes that all parties are equally able to design contracts. However, different people possess different information (Hayek 1945), creating variance among economic actors in knowledge about how best to design contracts. Moreover, these differential endowments of information also influence the cost of searching for better information (Stigler 1961) because people's endowments of information influence their ability to absorb additional information (Cohen and Levinthal 1989). Therefore, the assumption that all people are able to design optimal contracts is inconsistent with received wisdom about human capital

      ...

      Second, efficient contracting theory assumes that people consider complementarities between a wide range of contract provisions when they design contracts (Holmstrom and Milgrom 1994).

    3. Zax, Jeffrey S. (Winter 1989). "Implications for Efficient Contract Theory". Industrial Relations. 28 (1). John Wiley & Sons: 23–31. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1989.tb00720.x. Retrieved 2019-02-10.

      The article notes:

      These results are consistent with the theory of demand stimulation. They may also offer some insight into efficient contract theory, in the context of public sector unionism. In principle, employment levels in unionized departments would exceed labor demand at negotiated compensation levels if governments and their unions were to negotiate efficient labor contracts (McDonald and Solow, 1981; Hall and Lilien, 1979). Eberts and Stone (1986) demonstrate that at least in the case of public school teachers in New York state, efficient contracts occur in the local public sector.

      With efficient contracts, the observed employment—compensation locus—which need not be the contract curve (Johnson, 1986—lies to the right of the actual demand curve. However, it may still have negative, infinite, or positive slope. As stronger unions attain higher points on this locus, a negative slope implies a negative relationship between union strength and employment, relative to nonunion employment levels. A vertical locus—a special case of particular interest (Hall and Lilien, 1979; Brown and Ashenfelter, 1980)—implies no relationship. The effects of associations on employment per capita and monthly payrolls per employee may be consistent with vertical loci.

      ...

      Contracts which are efficient in the strict economic sense require unions to sacrifice compensation in return for employment. Contracts which are also efficient in the political sense may eventually allow unions to increase both employment and compensation through the stimulation of demand for local public services. The positive employment effects of local public sector bargaining units suggest that local public sector unions are efficient in both senses.

    4. Hansen, Robert S. (March 2001). "Do investment banks compete in IPOs?: the advent of the "7% plus contract"". Journal of Financial Economics. Elsevier: 313–346. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00089-1. Retrieved 2019-02-10.

      The article notes:

      The findings indicate that competitive banks will not break even using 7%, all else the same. The efficient contract theory asserts, however, that all else is not the same and competition in other dimensions will adjust the IPO contract to a "7% equivalent". Here, I investigate two implications of this theory.

      The article later notes:

      The evidence thus far favors the efficient contract theory over the cartel theory. Nevertheless, there remains the important prospect that a subtler form of collusion is present that is undetectable by the above tests.

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Efficient contract theory" is an established term. It has been the subject of research such as the March 2001 article by Robert S. Hansen in the Journal of Financial Economics. The definition given in the Wikipedia article about efficient contract theory discusses survivorship bias. Survivorship bias is one of the applications of efficient contract theory as discussed by Scott Shane's March–April 2001 Organization Science article. The article does not violate Wikipedia:No original research. But it can be improved by having a broadened scope to discuss the general topic and other applications of the concept such as efficient contracts between public sector unions and governments (see Jeffrey S. Zax's Winter 1989 article in Industrial Relations).

    Cunard (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The above are widely dispirate uses of the term and re-inforce the point that the term, as defined in this article, does not exist. In fact, it is not even clear that these sources are trying to create a defined term, outside of the phrase "an efficient contract". If "Efficient contract" was a defined term (as per "Efficient markets" theory), there would be loads of references with "Efficient contract" theory in the title and a description that meets the description in this article. However, there are none. This is WP:SYN (and largely made-up). Britishfinance (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is already a WP article on Contract theory that does not mention "Efficient contract theory". Here is investopedia (which has no "Efficient contract theory" entry) on "Contract theory" – again, no mention of "Efficient contract theory" [3]. Here is an article on the 2016 winners of a Nobel Prize for "Contract theory", and again, no mention of "Efficient contract theory" [4]. The only reference in Google scholar is to the 1996 paper referred to in the article [5]. After that, nothing. Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closers. The above needs careful reading, as this article has a specific definition taken from one 1996 paper that was never adopted by other sources. Arguements have been put for other uses of "Efficient Contract" but these are different definitions, and uses (some are not definitions but just use of the phrase "an efficient contract"). Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships 2019 – Men's team aerials

FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships 2019 – Men's team aerials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Event will not be held. Only a mixed team event will be held. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason.[reply]

FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships 2019 – Women's team aerials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why didn't you merge it and redirect it? Kante4 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would have, but the title of the articles are misleading as there is no event per gender. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the snowboard cross events, i requested speedy deletion of those. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lourdes 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ngao (weapon)

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

Not sure if this is a hoax or not, but most of the English Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, and the few that aren't appear to have got their information from this article. From what I can tell, Ngao is simply the Thai word for halberd or Guandao. In fact, the Thai article th:ง้าว appears to be about the Guandao, or some other Chinese weapon (not a Thai one). Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I hesitate to !vote keep because I would struggle to bring the article to an acceptable standard. That said, the translation as halberd seems to have a couple sources, which lead me to believe that it is a bad translation. One, in a number of similar to identical google books based discussions of Krabi Krabong, "ngao" is said to translate to "halberd" (see [6], [7]). Two, in Richard Cushmaitn's translation of "The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya" published by The Siam Society in 2000.. The Royal Chronicitles of Ayutthaya. The Siam Society, 2000, which is discussed and criticized here.[8] My current inclination is that given the variation in what ngao refers to, a short page like the current one with some information about some of the various usages might be nice (usages spanning from "long handled sword" and maybe "halberd"[9] to "war scythe"[10]). Smmurphy(Talk) 14:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: @ User:Smmurphy if the subject does translate to Halberd then why not merge and redirect? Otr500 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty clear from what User:Smmurphy wrote that reliable sources disagree about whether this should be translated as Halberd, so this needs thought rather than a simplistic solution. And a Halberd was a medieval European weapon, so existed in the days before globalisation. This means that the same name is unlikely to be appropriate for a Thai weapon used by warriors on elephants, which were not indigenous to Europe and almost unknown there. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the name exists but the translation is confusing and certainly muddied with the info from User:Phil Bridger. Even "(ขอ)" doesn't translate to anything of sense. To merge anywhere without transplanting issues the dubious references would have to be used so I am not sure what that would accomplish. Otr500 (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you say, "Even ขอ doesn't translate to anything of sense." ขอ literally means "hook", i.e. bullhook. There are two versions of the weapon. the plain ngao, which looks more or less like the guandao, and kho ngao, which is a ngao with a combined elephant hook. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:25, 16 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, sources provided demonstrate notability (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 07:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rzepin train disaster

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

There isn't sufficient coverage in reliable sources to confirm that this event happened. While it is possible that the incident occurred and was censored by the government of the Polish People's Republic, we lack the actual evidence in reliable sources to make that conclusion, and Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the absence of reliable source coverage. The lone reliable source cited in the article briefly mentions the event in the context of an article about other Polish train accidents, but also specifies that there is no confirmed evidence of the account beyond hearsay. Googling the Polish title returned a bunch of forum results but no significant coverage in RS–editors with more proficiency in Polish may have better luck. Less than reliable sources report that there was an attempt to memorialize the disaster, but that this attempt was called off due to a lack of evidence that the disaster occurred. Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki train disaster, a similar incident that may or may not have happened and may or may not have been censored, is distinct in that regardless of whether the event happened or not, there was significant coverage in sources from outside of Poland, and thus there is more coverage about both the event and the possible cover up. No such coverage appears to exist for the Rzepin incident. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as owner of the article As the owner of the article, im fine with its deletion. I tried to find sources, but couldn't find a reliable. This incident is very obscure and most of the sources are unreliable. Feel free to delete it. --Cientific124 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after seeing that people have added new sources that establish notability to the article, my deletion suggestion may be disconsidered.--Cientific124 (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, non-English sources are 100% acceptable provided that they're reliable. The issue here is that there doesn't appear to be any coverage in RS of any language. signed, Rosguill talk 03:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The sources appear to have been taken from the Polish article, The best I've found is this which states it's a rumour - An overall Google search brings up words like "apparently", "rumoured" and "allegedly" but there's nothing that says Yes this happened or No it didn't,
Given Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki train disaster exists (and too is alleged) I honestly can't support deleting this - Whilst sources for this aren't great I feel it's odd to delete one and not the other although as I said the other article has better sources than this. –Davey2010Talk 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the difference between these two articles is that regardless of whether the events happened or not, Nowy Dwór received attention in reliable sources and thus is notable; even if we somehow found evidence that conclusively proved that Nowy Dwór didn't happen, it would still be notable because of the existing coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some links to peruse regarding some of the !votes above include WP:OWN and WP:NOENG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Riley

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

No sources other than IMDB and none found in a quick search (more results are found for other people of the same name, such as [11]); the roles listed are generally single-episode TV appearances and don't meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Rodrigues Studios

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The coverage is in passing, and mostly about the founder, not the company. The studio hasn't even released a film yet - which suggests this is likely part of a PR campaign and a WP:PAID contrib by a WP:SPA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Baddest (Davido album)

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

This album doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. There is no indication that it will be released anytime soon. It has been four years since the artist announced that it would be released.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We have faced this issue before, unsuccessfully. There is a recent trend of unreleased albums that have reliable sources claiming that the album will be released someday, but with no actual date nailed down. This causes a problem with Wikipedia policies that support both deleting and keeping for various reasons. Just as a warning, see this AfD discussion for proof that we are about to see a quagmire form before our eyes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:29, 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 merge to ND-500. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LED (editor)

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

I have been unable to find any reliable sources to satisfy WP:V, let alone WP:PRODUCT. Adam9007 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Faizan Ul Haq

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Being interviewed a couple of times and publishing a newspaper article (which looks to be more of a vox pops item) does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Contested proposed deletion. ... discospinster talk 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Mohammed Faizan Ul Haq, T News
  2. ^ Mohammed Faizan Ul Haq, Namaste Telangana.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn, and there are no delete !votes present. North America1000 02:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Human Interaction Lab

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

Blatently promotional, mostly created by a clear COI account according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Virtual_Human_Interaction_Lab and I've today reverted more promotional content. Might be best at the COI board, but wanted to get the opinion of AfD people. A quick search shows it's notable, but I suspect the article should be restarted from scratch. Joe (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think I've saved this page from WP:TNT, at the very least. It involved cutting out possibly most of the bla bla. I also tried to inline some of the academic (sans url) sources in the references section, but I don't have the patience for that full effort at this point. I wouldn't object if someone else wanted to just delete them. But the page passes GNG, it seems. I'm unsure if it passes WP:CORPDEPTH? I'll do some additional research, although based on Joe's statement, at the very least a partial merge to Stanford might be appropriate. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note. After becoming acclimated with the page's Wiki markup, I can safely observe that the posting editor(s) is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's stylistic norms and strong guidelines concerning editing with a bias. I would recommend they do some research on both matters, and modify future editing accordingly. In the case of this page, that would likely necessitate admitting a conflict of interest (not personal details, there are strong security reasons for keeping identity to yourself), and then requesting on a topic's talk page that an unbiased editor screen your requests and implement changes on your behalf. If talk page response is slow, all editors can also be pinged on their personal IP or account talk pages. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neither of the Keep !votes offered a WP:PAG based rational. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoka

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

Contested speedy deletion RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs improvement but can be kept with very little work. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll add newspapers articles as referencies as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonese (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reworked some of the prose to make it less promotional. All that might need to be done is to add more information with respective sources. –eggofreasontalk 20:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sourcing is poor and unreliable. Fails WP:GNG, with a possible additional touch of WP:TOOSOON. The one piece that looks like it is actual journalism - the Gigabit Magazine piece, albeit quite fawning, doesn't even mention Spoka.[[12]] I Googled various combinations of Arkadin, Cisco and NTT with the name Spoka, and nothing comes up. While hunting, it appears that Spoka is a relatively new product owned by Arkadin, so I tried to see if Arkadin was notable, perhaps for a merge, and there's no coverage of them either. Cisco is listed as a partner on the Spoka site, but it appears they are just selling their equipment to them. I'm not sure how NTT fits in - they aren't mentioned anywhere, but the article's editor just went to the NTT Communications article (which is on my watchlist) and added info about this deal, perhaps hoping to influence notability with less OCD editors dropping in. The info added to NTT is just primary sources - the company's own press releases. On a related note, there are two other odd things here. A sock puppet investigation has been opened against the creator Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solonese, and the editor who nominated this article for deletion voted keep. Hopefully the tangential items will eventually get all sorted out, but for now, this is a clear delete. I'm also going to undo the NTT adds since the sourcing is primary and thus unreliable, and I'm not sure that this info should be there. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - I just saw this for more info about NTT and Arkada, so this must be what they're calling Spoka now. [[13]] But it's also too fawning to be taken seriously, so this is still a delete. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:24, 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) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The creating user withdrew their nomination and the consensus was reaching this conclusion anyways. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Joo

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

The page hardly exhibits notability except through various local usage of the subject's photographs, several photo galleries, and the repeated usage of one project for sourcing. Just because the subject took pictures that are featured on news aggregators does not necessarily mean that a biography is notable on Wikipedia. Most content appears to be written by the subject, creating a COI issue. Furthermore, the page is written like a CV and is very promotional. DrumSalad (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete - Entirely promotional, poorly sourced, non-notable, and written by someone close to the subject or even the subject himself. I’m not sure this even qualifies as a snub perhaps a redirect or merge would be a better option. Corystaples (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC) — Corystaples (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep setting aside the state of the article, why did I get so may excellent results in Google news? I stopped reading after the third consecutive page of coverage-- i.e. thirty news articles on his work. Notability is clear as day, with sustained in-depth coverage over time in reliable sources. Meets GNG but probably not WP:ARTIST.

and so on...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Has anyone bothered to read the sources listed above or the ones listed in the article because the subject is not mentioned at all in a majority of them with the exception of a photo caption that says 'pictures by Johnny Joo.' The stories themselves are not about Johnny Joo. In fact, the few that do are actually paid press releases by the subject himself through Catersnews and Barcroft Media, which are listed on every image because hey own them. Paying press to run stories and paying to have a wikipedia page written does not make one notable. A quick look at he article itself shows several sources that don't mention Joo at all like references #11,14,15 and so on. Even #27 Buzzfeed is another picture gallery with captions. Not to mention the whole exhibition section with no sources. Notable or not this article needs a lot of work as several editors already pointed out and tagged months ago. Cantonrubbernecks (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to administrators Yunshui Posting the link here as a proof https://www.freelancer.com/projects/articles/wikipedia-edit/ "I came across a man at a Starbucks boasting that he created his own Wikipedia page. It is entirely promotional with weak sources most of which are of the same project repeated over and over and image galleries. No substance or stories. Wikipedia told me it should be nominated for deletion because it’s promotional, poorly sourced and conflict of interest (speedy deletion) but I’m not on Wikipedia and need someone who is to report this on this page" Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming good faith on the AFD nomination... at the same time as I point out the nominator has under a dozen edits to his/her credit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yunshui and ThatMontrealIP I posted that job request, but after talking with GSS, I found that paid editing is frowned upon on Wikipedia and took the job post down. I did not hire anyone else to make edits, and in hindsight, this was a very scummy thing to do. I am new to all of this, and should never have considered using paid editors. Thank you for understanding, and PLEASE let me know if you have any questions!! DrumSalad (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a very dumb decision. I believe now that this page should be kept now that I'm familiar with WP:GNG and other policies. Is there a way to revoke the AfC claim, or do I keep it here to let it run its course? Thanks! DrumSalad (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DrumSalad: There are no delete !votes (other than a stricken one from a guy you canvassed; I hope you paid him well, because he's not going to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again now) so you can simply withdraw this AFD - enter a new !vote as Withdrawn and an administrator will close it. Yunshui 雲水 15:13, 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, there is a consensus that this material should be kept in some form, with most opinions to that effect being that the article should be kept as it is. Although a move to a different title has been proposed, it was not the focus of the discussion. This might be separately proposed, but I would note that from the text of the article, some attempts failed through sheer luck, and not through the success of an effort to stop the attack. bd2412 T 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unsuccessful_attacks_related_to_schools&action=edit

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

Appears to fail WP:LISTN. I can't find much that discusses unsuccessful school attacks as a group specifically. There doesn't really seem to be much encyclopedic value to this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nevertheless it is useful, as shown by the # of page views. Incidents in list are reliably sourced. Looks to me as though User:Fluffernutter made a useful split an unwieldy list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just repeating WP:ITSUSEFUL. And the sourcing isn't the problem (which would be an issue for improvement, not deletion); the problem is that this list doesn't meet WP:LISTN (as far as I've been able to tell; if you can demonstrate otherwise, that would be great, but your comment doesn't do that). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, the topic itself is useful, which is why the topic is notable. Unsuccessful school attacks are broadly studied and discussed in an attempt to figure out how to stop these sort of attacks. School attacks are somewhat unusual among mass-violence in that people involved know each other, at least sort of. Key findings are the importance of forming relationships with all students and quick, grounded reaction by staff. As there continue to be more unsuccessful attacks over the coming years I expect the list to grow and perhaps it will lead to new discoveries on what to do. Because a great deal of safety advice is ignored by students, it is important that this article remain on the internet. Descriptions of events that occured in the recent past in my opinion are less likely to be ignored than the safety advice. Maybe someday, Joe Shmoe will read it, infer with his own mind on what to do, and make a difference in the real world.
Additionally, it perpetuates a fallacy to only list the "successful" attacks on WP, as if only the point of view of the attacker matters. These "unsuccessful" attacks perhaps should be renamed List of successfully stopped attacks related to schools--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge - Third party sources are given. The information is reliable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Şemsişah Sultan

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

Invented character, no source. Peirce does not mention her, so this is a case of a fake reference. No usual source about Ottoman history mention her either. Phso2 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find a single mention anywhere. The references are really poor. The father, Levan II Dadiani has two wives according to the Georgian article. One of these wives had four children with two of them being daughters. It is possible that this is one of them. scope_creepTalk 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I did verify before accepting this at WP:AFC. I thought I found her in the Peirce reference but I can reproduce that this morning so apparently it was elsewhere. I should have taken notes. I'll try to have another look at this soon. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The father article has her original name. scope_creepTalk 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, what Peirce writes about Murad IV's consort lays here, ie one Ayșe and one another anonymous (in Peirce) favorite. No Georgian royal family, only the notion that "very little is known". This is not the first fictitious article written about a member of Ottoman dynasty, it is probably a side-effect of the success of Muhteşem Yüzyıl.--Phso2 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,I'm the writer of this article. You are right to think this is a fictional article for the mistake was made on my part as I didn't add all the citations and sources needed to proove the veracity of the article-I simply forgot. But I added the citations and sources which can be found in the "Names" and "Life" sections in the article. As for the part which indicates that Zilihan was part of Murad IV's harem it is in the citation after the word "Şemsişah" in the "Life" section more specifically on page 6 of the pdf in the "2 Eşleri" paragraph.I would never create an article if I wasn't sure of the information I'm using. I hope you give the article another read now that I added the sources and change your mind about its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christelle75 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you did'nt add any reliable source : this pdf is not a reliable source so it can't be used here. You have to find a history book written by a scholar, not a essay written by anybody.--Phso2 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC) PS: You also have to explain why you put Peirce as a reference for "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" (ref 3), when she actually never mentions a "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan".[reply]
Thanks for the reply! The weird thing about that PDF, however, is that it's a copy of an old version of the Turkish Wikipedia entry for Murad IV. The current version doesn't mention Şemsişah or Zilikhana, though! This is the last version of that entry where she appeared. The edit summary for the next entry says 'Nushirevan11 (mesaj | katkılar) tarafından oluşturulmuş 14.53, 8 Aralık 2016 tarihli sürüm (→‎Eşleri: Temrukoğlu adında bir tarihçi yoktur. Temrukoğlu soyadında bloglar açan çeşitli kadın sultanları kendi soyundan zanneden takıntılı bir şahsın uyduruk hikayeleridir. Necdet Sakaoğlu'nun kitabında iki eşi olduğu yazar.)'. Google Translate says this means 'Nushirevan11 (message | contributions) by 14.53, dated 8 December 2016 (→ spouses: there is no historian named Temrukoglu. Temrukoglu, who opened blogs in the name of the various women sultans who think his descendants are obsessive stories of a person obsessed. author.)'. @Nushirevan11: Could you help us with this discussion? Is there reliable evidence that Şemsişah Sultan existed and was also called Zilihana Dadiani? Alarichall (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As showed by the edit summary, the relevant part was erased by Nushirevan11 on the Turkish WP because this pdf is a non reliable writing signed by some people named "Temrukoglu" who claims to be related to the Ottoman dynasty on various blogs(cf [16] ; same claims about the same family were to be found on other Ottoman family members' articles a while ago ).Phso2 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be really happy if it turns out there's scholarship out there (presumably not in English, as I've searched hard for evidence in English) that shows that this person was real and notable. But given the discussion so far, I would support deleting. @Christelle75: I'm conscious that this is your first Wikipedia entry in English, and it's great to see you've been editing in Arabic Wikipedia too: you are obviously bringing some amazing skills to Wikipedia. I would not want you to be discouraged if this article is deleted. So if you want help with editing in future (for example if you want help finding scholarly sources or advice about Wikipedia guidelines), totally write to me on my talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alarichall. Thanks for your efforts! Alarichall (talk) 21:58, 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) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion... but just one clear !vote so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scope creep, Kvng, and Alarichall:since this is the third relisting after 22 days of process, could you please make your votes more clear in order to end this discussion? So far no source has been produced to support the content of this article except a non reliable pdf found on the net, which contradicts a reliable source: there is no reason to keep this AfD open indefinitely.Phso2 (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't really feel qualified to comment on this, but as far as I can see, we should delete. Alarichall (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Phso2: The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire is by Oxford University Press, must be a good reference. Delete if there is no other evidence since I made my last comment almost three weeks ago. There seems to be no evidence for her. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Scope creep:, but could you please vote clearly Delete instead of just Comment please? because otherwise your advice is still counted as "discussion" instead of "clear !vote" and it doesn't help to close the AfD.Phso2 (talk) 12:47, 25 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 Heidelberg University. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences

Heidelberg University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in its own right Bigwig7 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:01, 24 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. The discussion was split early on, but after Julle improved the article, nobody new to the debate suggested it should be deleted, and only one person argued against notability being demonstrated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High15

High15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately referenced article about a band notable only for appearing in, but not winning, a reality show. As always, competing in a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, but literally nothing else stated here passes WP:NMUSIC either -- and even the referencing is parked on one video clip of their appearance itself on the reality show's own self-published website and one short blurb, which is not enough media coverage to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They have participated in both Talang and Melodifestivalen. Their song was released yesterday and will without a doubt chart on Sverigetopplistan on Friday. Also per criteria 1 on WP:NMUSIC, by friday they will cover Criteria 2 of the same guideline. They also cover Criteria 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC as of today. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article states exactly nothing about them that is even remotely relevant to either NMUSIC #10 or NMUSIC #12. Criterion #10 does not cover off just any performance of any song on any television show, but pertains only to recording the primary theme song to a television series — and criterion #12 does not cover off every single appearance as a performer on a reality show, but only applies to news or documentary content profiling the band as a subject. Competing on a reality show and losing is not a notability criterion at all — the winner of the reality show is the only person who ever gets to have "was on a reality show" be the article-clinching notability claim in and of itself, while everybody else who competed but lost gets to have an article only if and when they have passed the same other notability benchmarks as any other musician who was never on the show at all. And releasing a single is not a notability freebie just because you predict that the song will become a hit in the future — if it hasn't already been a major hit single, then crystal balling its prospects of becoming one in the future counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "future" is in 5 days. Secondly the group covers several sections of WP:NMUSIC as established above. Also, Melodifestivalen isnt a reality show, it is an established singing competition on primetime TV. BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you are interpreting the NMUSIC criteria incorrectly: neither NMUSIC #10 nor NMUSIC #12 covers off appearing as a non-winning contestant on a music competition show at all. And for the purposes of NMUSIC, there is no significant distinction between a "reality show" and an "established singing competition on primetime TV", either — because the reality show is also a singing competition n primetime TV, and the notability criterion for that is still winning it, not just being on it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They competed in Melodifestivalen and failed to advance to the next round. That is not enough — notability from Melodifestivalen derives from winning it, not just from being present. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Melodifestivalen is not a reality series. It is an established singing competition on primetime TV. Secondly, I have explained that High15 covers Criteria 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC. And that by friday the groups song will have charted. That is why Adville correctly !voted Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Adville for adding an additional good source to the article.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I've already explained above that you are interpreting both NMUSIC 10 and 12 incorrectly. Criterion 10 refers to performing the primary theme song to a television series, not just to making an appearance on it — criterion 10 notabilizes nobody appearing on any singing or talent competition as a competitor, and applies only to the composer of the theme music the show uses over its opening credits. And criterion 12 does not magically hand every contestant on a singing competition a notability pass either — it applies only to bands or musicians who have been the subjects of dedicated news or documentary specials specifically about them. Simply appearing on a singing competition but losing does not pass NMUSIC #10, and it does not pass NMUSIC #12: those are both for completely different things that have nothing to do with competing in any form of singing or talent competition but failing to win it. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, about Talang, I agree. That is wannabees competing. Nothing more. You lose you are out.
Melodifestivalen, however, is different. You are not in it without being someone. Maybe on your way up and notable enough to be asked to performe. Or you already are up. If you look at the land of original, Sweden and svwp, all artists/groups performing in Melodifestivalen are notable to get an article. (Not every member in a group). This makes them notable enough for an article in svwp. If you are not familiar with this part of Swedish culture, which has fostered a lot of our Great international artists, I understand your questions. But some research how it work from you will clarify it. Best regards. Adville (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that is incorrect. Melodifestivalen is a "major miusic competition", as discussed in NMUSIC. If a musician ends up in first, second, or third place, that means they meet that criterion. According to the sources, they ended up in 6th place. It's clear-cut, I'm afraid. Maybe any band that performs in schlagerfestivalen is notable enough for a sv.wp article. That has zero bearing on their notability on en.wp. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as after their #46 debut on Spotify they'll surely make it to the Swedish charts on Friday, but for the next Mello contestants I'd suggest to wait a few days until the criteria are met to create the article. A 6th place out of 7 and a talent show participation aren't enough for relevancy IMO. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC) read below. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @BabbaQ:, @Merynancy: it looks like the song didn't chart on the Swedish Top 100 after all... in light of that, does it affect your vote above? Richard3120 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It still charted on Spotify 200 and anyway cover several sections of WP:NMUSIC. So my !vote remains unchanged.BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article subject covers point 1, point 10 and point 12 of WP:NMUSIC. It is a guideline established by the Wikipedia community. Any opinion that differs from that are POV and POV never trumps guidelines. This article should be kept, if we follow our own set guidelines. BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing about them that passes point 10 or point 12 — as I already pointed out above, the only way anything stated here passes either of those criteria is if you misinterpret the criteria to mean something completely different than what they were actually intended to cover. #10 covers off writing a show's theme song, not appearing on a reality show as a non-winning performer, and #12 covers off being the subject of news or documentary content, not appearing on a reality show as a non-winning performer. And all of the sources in the article are either (a) non-independent (appearing on a reality show does not translate into a notability freebie just because the reality show uploads a video clip of the performance to its own self-published website), or (b) glancing namechecks of their existence in articles that aren't about them — so passage of #1 isn't being demonstrated by these sources either. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are not well known only because of semi-successful participation in Talang and Melodifestivalen, but came to the public eye through their Youtube channel. There are plenty of (non-trivial) coverage, mainly relating to Talang or Melodifestivalen but not exclusively. I've added more information and references, and I think the article now passes WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Their YouTube covers' views range from 4k to 350k, I wouldn't say this makes them relevant enough as YT cover artists. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I'm arguing more on WP:GNG grounds, adding that to the other reasons. /Julle (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Julle. WP:GNG and parts of WP:NMUSIC met. BabbaQ (talk) 01:03, 24 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keating Building

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

Has been through prod but not through AFD. prod failed on account of this being a "historic" building, but there is no evidence provided of this, and I coudn't find anything substantiating notability. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be registered, etc. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, Bueller 007, could you please just withdraw your nomination and close this. I did add stuff. This does not need more editors' attention. --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw by nom. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that all remaining problems with the article can be fixed by normal editing. At the worst case, editors have suggested restoring a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.H.U.I.

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

Translated page from the Romanian Wikipedia. Very poor state and not really notable. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: firstly, I think the "Romania Top 100" and "Media Forest" charts are one and the same, because in 2013 the only chart in Romania was the Airplay Top 100, compiled by Media Forest. That chart was broadcast on the Romanian radio station Kiss FM, and the song certainly reached at least number three on that chart, because there is an archived copy of Kiss FM's podcast of the chart of 9 June 2013 [20] - you have to download the podcast in order to be able to listen to it, and the song comes in at 2:18:10. But the Moldovan chart position can't be verified, and unless someone can come up with some good sources in Romanian, a redirect to Carla's Dreams seems to be the best option, as the band is unquestionably notable in Moldova and Romania. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Redirect: The charts are indeed messed up in that article; for an overview of the charts operated in Romania, see Romanian music charts. The song attained some commercial success, but it isn't enough for a stand-alone article in my opinion. Redirect as well. Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - worth noting that there seems to be a lot more results in Russian (the name of the song means "I don't give an F" in Russian). My Russian is not nearly good enough to contribute to sourcing, but perhaps we can get some native input? Skirts89 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the song received any coverage from third-party, reliable sources? If so, could you please either list them here or include them in the article? You are correct that charting does indicate some notability, but it only indicates a limited sense of notability. Chart placements can easily be communicated in the artist's main page, without the need for a separate article. I would suggest that either "keep" voters address this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of the decision of this AfD, I have gone through the article to better translate into native English. Skirts89 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Eastmain: @Skirts89: the problem is that while we can prove that the song charted in two countries, there are no sources at all so far for any of the text... if we can't locate any sources to provide some prose for the article, I'm not sure we should be keeping permastubs which consist of just two chart placings and nothing else – it's better just to include that information in a discography table. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYS Collection

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

All the citations are self-published. A WP:BEFORE Google search turned up no independent in-depth WP:RS sources. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion yet on notability, but I see that content has twice before been deleted for WP:COPYVIO, and much of the current content, added on 31 January, is again copied and pasted from the company website. There also seem to be issues of WP:COI in the editing history. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Kleiser

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

Character appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Dible

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

Unreferenced BLP; a model/tv presenter of no real notability. Google search turns up nothing of value, and earlier versions of the article seem to rely solely on a now defunct official website. PC78 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 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. Tone 20:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Gadgil

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by its subject. Edwardx (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:56, 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 speedy keep. North America1000 02:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P90X

AfDs for this article:
P90X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Entirely promotional fails WP:SPIP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and are all based on company "infomercials" and are not intellectually independent, failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 14:26, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Urman

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

Not seeing how this person can pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Run of the mill medical person. Edwardx (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:12, 24 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Linsky

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lack of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, as evidenced by the large amounts of original research. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is definitely notability, but I am not sure if the article should be about Jack and Belle Linsky together (there seems to be a fair bit of coverage about them as a couple, and as much about him as about her in one of the sources), or about the Jack and Belle Linsky Collection, which there is also a lot of coverage about. I note that she had an obituary in the New York Times, and I have seen many comments in AfDs that that is enough to prove notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obituary on Jack Linsky in the New York Times. It does not say that he cofounded Swingline with his wife. That is mentioned in only one of the articles cited in the Belle Linsky article and its accuracy is unclear, especially since the obituary of Belle does not say that she was co-founder. It is a brief obituary of the kind the Times does not run anymore, and I don't believe it is sufficient to establish notability. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the lede to read "owned" the company with Jack. There is no evidence she co-founded it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is much evidence of co-ownership. What I do see is a lot of orginal research. No shortage of that. Coretheapple (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around, it seems there are 11 mentions on WP of the collection, so perhaps it makes sense to rename the page Jack and Belle Linsky Collection, and to add some basic bio information for Jack. Changing above !vote to reflect this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:ThatMontrealIP's !vote then should be interpreted as "Keep", although suggesting rename too. Merge is not meant, because there is no target to merge into...this is to be kept and reworked. Rename is not really an AFD outcome; note it is not included in (unofficial but helpful/interesting) wp:AFDSTATS reports. I !vote "Keep" with a rename suggestion below, myself. --Doncram (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. "Keep... and then rename" is certainly an outcome!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though renaming/moving to Belle and Jack Linsky, say, would perhaps be appropriately done by editors continuing to develop the topic. I think their apparently notable $60 million art collection can be covered as a section in an article named for the couple. While exact title doesn't matter too much, i think that way is more natural than covering the personal bio type info in an article titled to be about the collection. --Doncram (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it would be awkward to talk in an article titled to be about the collection at the Met about all their other stuff, i.e. about the Linsky family's other art, including that donated "to The Israel Museum, Tel Aviv Museum, RISD Museum, Minneapolis Institute of Art, Art Institute of Chicago, North Carolina Museum of Art, LACMA, Snite Museum at Notre Dame, Spencer Museum of Art at The University of Kansas, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Godwin Ternbach Museum, Davis Museum at Wellesley College, Allen Memorial Art Museum at Oberlin College, Nelson Atkins Museum, and Detroit Institute of Arts", and to talk about their "largest Fabergè collection in America, and second only to the Queen of England in the world", etc. A future rename can be left to editors at the article, does not need to be decided as part of this AFD. Any rename should reflect changes to the article, too, not yet done. --Doncram (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but renamed and scope expanded to include Jack). Between owning a notable corporation and their contributions to the art world, the Linskys have fully met notability criteria. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 21:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's unusual to have one article on two people unless they are referred to as such in multiple independent secondary sources (as in Laurel and Hardy). That is not the case here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence F. Birkhead

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest. I don't know whether county sheriffs are considered notable just by being elected to the office, but I see we have a total of nine in the Category:North Carolina sheriffs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:40, 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 deleted by Billinghurst with the comment of "autobiographical spam of non-notable person, prviously deleted at Mohammad Tiregar". (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Tiregar Bahnemiri

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

I am not convinced by the notability of this actor. My Google search only gives previously deleted wiki versions and a twitter social media account. Doesn't meet our WP:GNG despite the creator putting several sources. Also there is a conflict of interest Loved150 (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

approved
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: this is the same junk deleted at Mohammad Tiregar and is autobiographical clap trap. Please stop your abuse of wikipedias. I am about to delete it, someone feel free to close the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Radcliffe

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

Nothing other than primary sources available here other than a few passing mentions in newspapers. Not a strong delete vote, but this individual was added Wikipedia:Too soon. Isingness (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not agree, Radcliffe has been in four Ted talks and is a regular keynote at international major conferences, as well as leading security and corporate events (Infosec, Rant, DISA, Nordic IT Security, ICS2, Trend Micro, Cisco, NTT, Bright talk, Cyber Security Week and security serious). Besides that her podcast got awarded the 2018 European Best Security Podcast at the European Blogger Awards. The article has been written based of (mostly) secondary sources. That's why I believe this biography is relevant and not Wikipedia:Too soon. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just last week another article about Radcliffe was published in Finland: https://www.tivi.fi/Kaikki_uutiset/hakkeri-paljastaa-nain-varovaistakin-ihmista-voi-huijata-6756624. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles is apparently promotional, including exaggerations. Contrary to the article, she has not given 4 TED talks. he has given 4 TedX talks. Three is a very significant difference, because any organization can sponsor a TedX talk who follows the format. Not indicating this particular point is a common device of promotional writers who do not know the difference. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TedX talks aren't necessarily commercial, and nothing that someone has spoken in a Tex(x) talk is just the same as that someone talked at another event. But I'll change the parts about Ted to "TedX". TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 19:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slo-Pachinko Gladiator Evolution

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

Insufficient notability. The reference given is not about the soundrtack album, either. I searched Japanese language sites too, and apart from fan blogs, no mentions. Didn't chart on Oricon [26]. Even though the artist is notable, that doesn't mean all his albums are notable, too. Couldn't even scrape together 1 source that exclusively deals with this album. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 10:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 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 delete. Consensus is that coverage is insufficient for GP:GNG and that the requirements of WP:PROF are also not met. Sandstein 14:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Alex O. Vasilescu

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

The article is likely written by the subject and reads like advertisement. It basically claims that the subject is notable for her PhD research. Whereas an individual in exceptional cases can be notable just for their PhD research, it is clearly not our policy that all PhD students of top universities are notable, and I do not see any education indication that the subject was doing any research after the graduation, thus clearly failing WP:PROF. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject introduced a new area of research in multiple fields. Thus, it meets the very first criteria of WP:PROF. The article is not an advertisement, but it explains the research insight that has lead to the development of a new area of research and to today's innovations. Research continued after the 2009 PhD in academia and in industry.Alexmov —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Alexmov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. On the face of it this article would appear to pass both WP:PROF#C1 for highly cited publications [27] and WP:GNG for heavy media coverage of that same research. And in fact I started to write a "keep" comment saying so, and pointing out that despite the badly written and promotional text of the article, AfD is not cleanup. But it does appear to be true that she is notable only for her student work (split into multiple publications, but all on the same general topic). Since completing her Ph.D. in 2009 she has done essentially nothing in the way of academic publishing [28] and has dropped out of academia to become science officer at a startup, per her CV [29]. And much of the article appears to be copied and pasted from that cv. So there's a case to be made here for WP:BIO1E and (because of the copyvio, not just the bad writing) WP:TNT. I'm holding off deciding for myself which way to go for now in the hope that more discussion here can clarify the case first. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's beyond my understanding how reviewers who have commented here tried to bash her and not even give this a chance. For one thing, she is an established person in the field who has 3000 citations. Most recently, she has been elected as one of the chairs of the CVPR, the most impactful conference in the engineering and computer science combined . This is a great testimony of the fact that her research contributions are recognized in her field. Please judge fairly and put away your egos and biases. This is Wikipedia! Ahatamiz (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Ahatamiz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Regarding WP:TNT Happy to delete all! Thank you for all your comments. -- Alexmov —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, starting a new area of research in multiple fields, ie. redefining problems from different fields, is hardly a single event. Alexmov (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cut the article way, way back, to a stub that looks in principle legitimate and not promotional. XOR'easter (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the MIT TR article: http://www2.technologyreview.com/tr35/profile.aspx?TRID=310 Alexmov (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that TR100 was awarded because of the introduction of a specialized form of mathematics, called tensor algebra, for face recognition, extracting human motion signatures and synthesizing new textures. In other words, Vasilescu introduced tensor algebra to the field of computer vision (TensorFaces, Human Motion Signatures), graphics(TensorTextures, Human Motion Signatures) and machine learning. Alexmov (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vasilescu's introduction of the tensor paradigm to computer vision, computer graphics, machine learning and tensor algebra extension is not a promotional statement, but an undeniable verifiable fact. Alexmov (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note After reading through this carefully, and having the discussion relisted while doing so, I am inclined to discount pretty much all of the commentary except that from David Eppstein and the OP (Ymblanter). -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am unsure about this. On the face of it, publications in ICPR/CVPR along with TensorFaces being mentioned in the handbook of Biometrics by Anil Jain is a positive. On the other hand, I don't see much coverage and hardly research after ~2010. I would be willing to having an article solely based on the work alone, provided the contribution something which is widely notable (such as Eigenface). Not casting a vote at the moment, but will look at this later.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The product (TensorFaces) may be notable, but does not imply notability of creator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. I'm also very uncomfortable with the clear COI problems that are arising. Skirts89 15:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as as explained in my comment above. The main problem is lack of coverage. I would have been OK with an article (even without too much coverage), provided the publication of TensorFaces was widely notable. It seems to have been noticed, but I won't call it widely notable. I don't see a pass for WP:PROF#C1--DreamLinker (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at it again and I am unfortunately not convinced. Apart from lack of coverage, I also checked the h-index which seems to be 16 according to Google Scholar. This is somewhat on the low side given that Computer Vision/Biometrics is a high citation field. Most career researchers who are working for ~15 years have an h-index > 40. I don't see a criteria which can satisfy WP:PROF.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Women often have unorthodox academic careers in technical fields. Her work was not a two or three year thesis project finished with nothing else done later. She first published in 1991. She received her master's degree from MIT in 1997. Twelve years later, in 2009, she received her PhD from the University of Toronto. During that 12 year period she left to work in the New York University and MIT media labs and published papers before writing her thesis. Those papers by now are highly cited and continue to be cited steadily to this day. She has not "dropped out" of academics. She holds a staff position at UCLA and teaches courses. Like many academics she also is part of a small consulting firm. Is she being penalized for having had a promotional Wikipedia article? The articles of many male academics start out that way too. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eppstein. GS h-index of 16 not enough to pass WP:Prof in this very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Geoff Hinton, Amnon Shashua, Demetri Terzopoulos, David Fleet, Allan Jepson signed off on the dissertation that has the following first sentence: "This thesis introduces a multilinear algebraic framework for computer graphics, computer vision, and machine learning, particularly for the fundamental purposes of image synthesis, analysis, and recognition. " In other words, that is not a promotional statement contratry to doubts casts by David Eppstein who has no expertise in this field. The prior statement is not meant to cast aspersion on David's knowledge and expertise in his own area of research. Alexmov (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: h-index is a type of productivity measure and not a measure of the value of one's contribution. Alexmov (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • h-index is measure of not only productivity, but also impact of the contributions. For academics, this is an indicator of notability. A higher h-index indicates that on an average, multiple papers have had a high impact. Given that vision/biometrics is a high citation field, an h-index of 16 is on the low side.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any rule of thumb like h-index needs to be used carefully. It does not work well if a researcher has made an impact while writing only a few papers. Her top 16 papers with citations of (888 432 304 247 212 194 187 173 161 117 37 32 22 20 17 16) give an h-index of 16. Citations of (50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 37 32 22 20 17 16) would have given the same h-index but imply a very different impact. She has 5 papers with over 200 citations. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above is certainly valid, but this BLP looks like a flash in the pan. One can count citations, but h-index gives an indication of sustained achievement over time. Time will tell if the initial impact, most of which is co-authored, is reinforced. Wikipedia can wait. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I typed this in the section, but by the time I hit return the page disappeared:

  • Contributions of co-authors: Xxanthippe, counting the number of single versus co-authored papers is not the correct criteria for determining who is the driving force behind the tensor research direction. You are discounting that the first paper that introduced tensor algebra for modeling cause-and-effect in computer vision, computer graphics and machine learning was single-authored, and appeared in print in 2001 and 2002 (Human Motion Signature work). Additionally, the second sentence in a very diplomatic disertation acknowledgement section, "Although initially resisting the direction of my research, he (D. Terzopoulos) eventually became its biggest supporter", leaves no doubt at the identity of the person that was the driving force behind this line of work versus the person that "resisted" and "eventually" become a "supporter". Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance vs Citations: TensorFaces garnered 888 citations, while a tensor survey paper by Kolda and Bader in which Vasilescu and Terzopoulos are cited every where garnered 4892 citations. If one used citation counts, the survey paper is more than five times more important than TensorFaces, a paper that re-framed a vision problem and modeled cause-and-effect as a tensor problem. Furthermore, survey papers are often citations in liu of relevant papers, since it is a lazy way of referencing relevant work. Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance vs Indices: Employing citations and indices, while expedient, it is not only a flawed approach to determining importance, it is an abdication of independent critical thinking, and it merely gives more people the opportunity to have an opinion without doing indepenent due diligence, yet having the false impression of being informed. For example, the moment a survey paper is written, it will naturally end up "stealing" citations from prior relevant papers, but without impacting papers written after the survey. Thus, citation and index measures will be doubly compromised. If one wanted to determines importance, one ought to also look at the citation count of papers that were directly influenced by some initial paper, such as TensorFaces. In other words, does the follow-up work that was influenced by TensorFaces/Human Motion Signatures resulted in highly cited papers? Any index that does not also look at the citation count of follow-up work, it is not a measure of importance, although even if such an index existed, it would simply pushes down citation/index problem to second order effects. These type of shorcuts are highly flawed. Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Voting to Delete was based on and influenced by David Eppstein, someone that offered no evidence for doubting contributions listed in the article and who is not an expert in the field. Do not delude yourself, what took place here is called mob voting, and clearly very biased. Alexmov (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDF field hospital for Gazans

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

Delete - Orphaned article, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Has POV language like "operation against the terror regime in Gaza. Hamas, however, had urged them to remain in the area and has been using the local population as human shields when firing missiles at Israeli civilians" etc. Minimax Regret (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) The user had no right to start this AFD per WP:A/I/PIAShrike (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Propaganda story about the ungrateful animals who refuse medical help from the wonderful people who caused their injuries. Sources are army press release and several near-identical press parrotings of it. Utterly unsalvageable tripe. Zerotalk 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear on what reliable secondary source this POV assertion of propaganda is based, however even if true - articles may cover notables pieces of propaganda - e.g. The Flower Girl - the subject matter being or not being propaganda doesn't have any connection with notability. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can see better than most editors that this is cheap propaganda. It is also non-notable propaganda. Your comparison with The Flower Girl is completely ridiculous. Zerotalk 11:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see beat it by a few months. Then delete as propaganda remains my !vote. nableezy - 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not comment about whether this is propaganda or not; instead, discuss whether it is notable and based on reliable sources, and whether can be made neutral if it isn't sufficiently neutral.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I wasnt commenting on if the subject was propaganda. I was saying our article is propaganda. nableezy - 17:00, 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. I am pretty much discounting all commentary by ip174.72.248.8 . Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Distefano

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

Delete as non-notable individual. Article created by son. Understandable but doesn't meet the threshold of notability, IMHO. Quis separabit? 05:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep... but cleanup and re-focus significantly. He was a moderately important businessman on the Las Vegas Strip during the glory days, and got posthumous coverage of that in a fair number of reliable media sources after his death. There are some retrospective sources out there that could be added to the article to enhance the history of his business dealings. (But beware that there is a Chicago mobster of almost the same name: Sam DeStefano.) On the other hand, the gentleman's music is completely insignificant and non-notable, and it's evident that the article's creator (a family member) is trying to round out the man's life story with useless family values. That stuff can be removed, and get rid of most of the photos too. Otherwise there might be enough for a stub article on his business history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User 174.72.248.8 (who voted twice below), edited MY vote and put the following text in the middle of my comment: (LOL. Whatever you say, Lord Vader. LOL. Every fact in this man's bio is one hundred percent true, accurate, and just that - factual; and can be confirmed, referenced, and sourced all day long. And if his century-lifelong achievements aren't 'notable,' but rather 'completely insignificant and non-notable,' I'd like to read YOUR biography. Lol. :)) (Of course! Readers HATE photos, right? LOL. They're so boring. LOL.  :)) My comment has been restored to its original. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Doomsdayer520 (an apparently well-thought-out and most appropriate name) is absolutely misalleging that his or her vote was "edited." Not one single word or even so much as one letter of his or her "vote" was touched, removed, changed, deleted, or "edited" in any way at all whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that Wikipedia tracks edit histories? My comment was first altered by 174.72.248.8 in this edit: [33], with several more tweaks by the same user. Note that I was first called "Satan" before it was changed to "Vader". All this for recommending that we KEEP the article! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreeing with original post.
    Vmavanti (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... He obviously was an integral component to the history of entertainment on both the famous Playboy Club chain circuit as well as the Las Vegas Strip. Practically every aspect of his illustrious career is sourceable. As an example, he was a judge on Star Search and there are clippings viewable on the Internet of the shows he appeared on. He also led the famous 32-piece house orchestra at Playboy's flagship resort property that backed all of its very famous headliners for over a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: How could someone who co-created, associated-produced, and booked four different legendary productions shows on the Las Vegas Strip that ran for a total of over an entire century combined (i.e., Splash, An Evening At La Cage, An Evening At The Improv, and Crazy Girls (which is still running to this day at Planet Hollywood since Distefano along with Norbert Aleman and Meshulam Riklis originally co-created, associate-produced, and booked it over a third of a century ago in 1986 at the Riviera and it hasn't stopped running one single night since)) as well as started countless celebrities in show business by launching their careers on the iconic, international Playboy Club circuit for over a quarter century straight (while simultaneously accompanying on piano, leading, and conducting the world-class 32-piece orchestra that backed all of these countless celebrities at Playboy's 1,600-acre resort in Lake Geneva for 10 of those 25 years) be "non-notable???" Is this a fair question worth contemplating?
  • Pinging Mdann52 who appears to be the one who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The two "keep" votes above are by the same person, 174.72.248.8. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: And while Doomsdayer520 is counting 'votes,' why not expend some of that same time counting his or her own "notes?" You always this passionate and dedicated to sabotaging people's Wiki pages??? LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were previously two "Keep" votes above, both by 174.72.248.8 and the second remains unsigned. This editor has since changed the second vote from "Keep" to "Note". All of this is clearly visible in the edit history, which is a record that cannot be sabotaged. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Retracted - Admins, please disregard my vote above and do not count it in the final decision (in other words, my vote is now Abstain.) I first recommended that we KEEP the article, but nevertheless I have had my comment vandalized by the article's supporter, who has called me "Satan" and accused me of sabotage when all I did was recommend cleaning up the article. This is clearly visible in the edit history, which cannot be sabotaged. Congratulations to Mr. 174.72.248.8 for alienating his own supporters. It's too bad that none of this makes old Mr. Distefano any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's really obvious from the very outset, how Doomsdayer520 was being "completely objective" and not acting from motives that were anything at all "personal" or the result of being perhaps a little oversensitive. LOL. In re to "Mr. Doomsdayer520's" alleged vote of "keep," it was (as the unsabotageable 'record' indisputably shows) in actuality, a vote of "weak keep." LOL. So, he or she evidently was "on the fence" from the start. Also, how could Mr. 174.82.248.8 "alienate his own supporter's'" if there was only one supporte"r" (i.e., singular as opposed to plural) in the first place??? So, not only is Doomsdayer520 exceptionally vulnerable to sticks, stones, and names that hurt him or her, he or she also appears to have a potential issue with distinguishing between singular and plural. LOL. Take it easy, Doomsdayer520. If it'll help dry your tears a bit, Mr. 174.72.248.8 hereby both retracts the "dark side" name-calling's as well as humbly and most sincerely apologizes for them. And Doomsdayer520 is most certainly correct when adding that "none of this makes old Mr. Distefano any more notable." Particularly when he or she, him or herself, incorrectly misstated (again as the indisputable Wiki record indicates and affirms) "old Mr. Distefano's" music was "completely insignificant and NON-NOTABLE." (Emphasis added.) LOL. Too bad indeed. Most especially since Doomsdayer520 was woefully and absolutely most incorrect (as he or she apparently has been about most everything in this 'discussion') in attempting to misapply those inapplicable adjectives to an accomplished jazz pianist who was bunkmates for three years straight in the same platoon, as well as best friends for life, with Bill Evans, lead on piano and conducted his own 32-piece house orchestra at the legendary, 1,600-acre Playboy Resort and Country Club in Lake Geneva for over a decade straight that accompanied Tony Bennett, Ann Margret, Liza Minnelli, Sammy Davis, Jr., Anthony Newley, Vic Damone, Buddy Rich, Diahann Carroll, Steve Lawrence and Edyie Gorme, and dozens more of the world's most legendary vocalists and jazz artists, could play over 1,500 standards in all twelve keys, and was the house pianist at the Stut 'N Tut in Miami (that he personally owned and operated) with the single greatest jazz trombonist in history (more so than even Kai Winding, Bill Watrous, J.J. Johnson, Tommy Dorsey, and Glenn Miller COMBINED) - Carl Fontana (also a dear, close, personal, lifelong, family friend of the Distefano's for DECADES). If that's not PROOF that "Mr. Doomsdayer520" should stick to editing horticulture bios, instead of attempting to wield false comments exposing his or her ignorance about "old Mr. Distefano," then nothing else could constitute that proof more. Now remember, Mr. Doomsdayer520, these are FACTS and it's really nothing personal. No joke. So, try to stay cool, calm, and collected. LOL. And also take note: Nothing in the above "Note" contained any "useless family values." LOL. LOL.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distefano was legendary in his industry.

Keep Sam Distefano was well known and respected throughout the show business industry.

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims in New York City Project

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

Lack of references to establish notability. While the project published many papers (which can be found on Google Scholar), those papers are about their own subjects, not this research funding vehicle itself, and generally only mention this project as an acknowledgement, rather than discussing it substantially in its own right. I can't find any reliable source which actually discusses this project in detail, as opposed to just acknowledging it as a funding source or academic affiliation. Previously PRODed but PROD contested by User:DGG. SJK (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found one brief article talking about this project (as opposed to acknowledging it in passing as a funding source or affiliation) – https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15604451.pdf – although, since the project was run out of Columbia University, and the author identifies as an academic at Columbia, its independence is questionable. Furthermore, we arguably need more than a one page article in a newsletter to reach the threshold required by WP:GNG. SJK (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I ddeprod any article (about 1 a day) where I think a community discussion has some poreasonable probability of finding sources. About half of these get kept, half deleted. I'm just screening , not making a judgment. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with SJK, we need significant coverage, and that just hasn't been provided. Much of what I'm finding is 9/11-aftermath stuff, so perhaps redirect to Reactions to the September 11 attacks#Muslim Americans? SITH (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @StraussInTheHouse:: not opposed in principle to a redirect. However, I wonder how much sense it makes to redirect a title to an article section which (right now) doesn't even mention what the title refers to? And we could add a mention there, although we'd have to ask how significant this academic research project was in terms of Muslim American reactions to 9/11. The problem with redirects to sections, is even if you add some mention of the redirected topic to the section, someone later on might decide to cut it out, or the article might be reorganised to remove the section in question. And then, years from now, someone will stumble upon the redirect, and struggle to work out why it exists. SJK (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SJK, all fair points. Delete it is from me then. SITH (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. withdraw fr nominator (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genah Fabian

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:NMMA - has not been fought in Top tier promoter and only had one fight in her professional career - see here [34]. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anyone read the sources Genah Fabian won the World Muaythai Council title which makes this article legitimate under WP:KICK. So Genah Fabian achievements as a kickboxer kickboxer make her notable not a MMA fighter.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coke Studio Pakistan (season 11)#Season line-up chart. After two relistings, this discussion has received very little input. Closing as redirect as a functional search term per WP:ATD-R. North America1000 13:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Young Desi

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

Subject does not appear to 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) 10:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Cates

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

Fails GNG, ANYBIO. Lots of passing references as an artist but no substantive coverage beyond a paragraph. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 14:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. Rolfe Kerr

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC notability standards. WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, just name checks, faint passing mentions and quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. The one independent source in the article only provides very minor passing mentions, and the rest of the article is reliant upon two primary sources and one unreliable source; none of these establish notability. North America1000 01:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Glam

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

I think its time to review if best new starlet is enough as its not worthy of its own article and winning the award clearly doesn't lead to adequate coverage... Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While this performer may meet the letter of WP:PORNBIO, significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources does not appear to exist. The CNBC reference is a permanently dead link, but CNBC's "Dirty Dozen" is an annual listicle with a two-sentence entry per porn star. It is not significant coverage. The AVN and XBiz coverage is promotional in nature. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many articles about pornstars satisfy pornbio, but they can not escape a very characteristic pattern (Summarized Early life and career + Awards + References, usually AVN and XBIZ + External Links usually IAFD and AFD). If we exclude we create a dictatorship against porn since this happens with several biographies about sportsmen, youtubers etc ..., if we do not exclude we leave hundreds of articles that hardly stop being an stub. Maybe creating lists like AVN Award for Best Actress and redirecting to this not-so-well-notorian article is a solution.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great suggestion. I would support that. Spartaz Humbug! 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz:But many do not agree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVN Award for Best New StarletGuilherme Burn (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guilherme Burn - yes, some users create a dictatorship against porn articles, it stings in the eye. Wikipedia need wider discussion about notability for all, about biographies in a general sense because a group of several still the same users created AfD pages for many articles about pornstars (with awards, many movies, even sometimes mentions in the press, movies, music videos outside porn industry)... and they do nothing with million nothing significant biographies about sportsmens, politics etc. This extremely violates the rule of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Common sense. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Subtropical-man: Per WP: GOODFAITH I believe it is a problem of WP: BALANCE. The media and the Academy ignore pornography, so wikipedia also ignores it. Per Lack of independent sources. So I strongly support the end of WP:PORNBIO and the use of other criteria of notoriety for pornstar.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Wikipedia, consensus can change. In the case of PORNBIO, consensus was changed to tighten the guideline twice since the first AfD debate. Most important, the "well-known and significant industry award" test excluded many niche award categories. The Best New Starlet award itself and at least two winners (Rachel Ashley and Holly Hendrix) have been deleted at AfD. As for GNG, please identify the significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The CNBC coverage is not significant and nearly all of the porn trade press is reworked press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Best New Starlet of AVN Award (Oscars of porn industry) meets of WP:PORNBIO. Porn-deletionism group constantly trying to push too very very very rigorous version (de facto this group recognize every award as not "well-known and significant"). I do not see the article Holly Hendrix (deleted, for only administrators) but I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Hendrix and still the same group of users: K.e.coffman, The Big Bad Wolfowitz aka Hullaballoo, John Pack Lambert, Davey2010 - (for years) this group lobbying for mass removal of porn-articles. Wikipedia:Meat puppetry describes such an actions. Your arguments have been refuted. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our more logical pornographic biography guidelines. I would argue even these are still way too broad. I tire of having a special set of guidelines for pornographic biographies and still think we should make them pass GNG for indepdent coverage, which virtually all would fail. No one has ever shown that these no name awards they keep speaking of lead to coverage in 3rd-party publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" is not significant and well known; significant RS coverage not found; sourcing is in passing, PR-driven, and / or primary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above. GNG failure without significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Protests about a deletionist cabal fail to produce evidence to the contrary. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nexstgo

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, although admittedly there may be some in Chinese. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for this recently started company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am writting this in response to "Articles for deletion/Nexstgo", this article should be kept to vast the content of Wikipedia. To further support the content of article, more coverage from independent sources are added. In fact, many of the coverage are written in Traditional Chinese since this is a Hong Kong based company, some coverage are some written in English or other languages by various platform among different countries. I am interested in tech and laptop, also a newbie to Wikipedia! There are various laptop brands in Wikipedia, and this is not a brand new brand in 2019! I tried adding this to make it more comprehensive, this is the reason of creation of this article. Content in this article are based on fact, I tried hard to make it neutral as others in Wikipedia. Feel free to edit this article if you disagree with it, but I am 100% disagree that there is conflict of interest and free advertisement.SavvyNotebook (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place of paid editing, which i don't understand the motive of flooding wikipedia with non-notable (by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH standard, fails to have external source as citation, to write an in-depth article). The parent company may be notable, but not the newly created division/brand. Matthew hk (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@101.78.221.226: product test report can prove the existence of the product, but nothing to do on writing an in-depth article about the brand or the company. A notebook with X dimension , Y design on air flow , use Z CPU, have no information to improve the detail of the producer. Matthew hk (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User SavvyNotebook has not responded to the message on his talkpage asking him to disclose any conflict of interest, and has continued to edit despite the instruction "do not edit further until you answer this message." Additionally, IP 101.78.221.226 has commented at this AfD but has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julen Roselló

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

Not seeing any notability beyond news for one event. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The international media are reporting about this incident and the rescue operation. It is an incident similiar to the death of Alfredo Rampi. -- Heimkinderverband (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable for one event is not usually enough for an article, and it is not the same, for a start he is not dead yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, he has reached the international media, even prominent newspapers like The New York Times have talked about him ([36]). Super Ψ Dro 10:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other political figures such as Pedro Sánchez (Prime Minister of Spain!), Pedro Casado and others (including people outside politics) have also talked about him ([37], [38]). Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic as it is, Wikipedia is not a news station. How do we even know if this will have sustained coverage or if it’s just the story of the day. Delete until further notice. Trillfendi (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Story of the day? Really? People here have been waiting for this rescue to end for 13 days, and it has become an international phenomenon in some way or other, so to qualify it like that seems very incorrect to me. Super Ψ Dro 10:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is a prefect example of why we have not news.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is why people should not be renaming pages in the middle of discussions. The move to "Death of X" was made after the AfD was opened, and the move to "Rescue of X" was made after we already knew he was dead and his body had already been recovered, and after this AfD was opened for a week. The person who renamed it to "Rescue of" was truly doing something ill-advised, since he ewasn't rescued, and the person who renamed it already knew that. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And one reason for this was the almost live news feed nature if this article, with daily updates.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, unrelated. At the time the AfD started, he was already dead, and his body had been recovered. The move to "Death of" and "Rescue of" is unrelated to the news stream since the two events were already in the past, and were not new developments. Unlike other articles on unfolding events, where the circumstances change. This is not the case here, since "Rescue of" has always been a misleading title since it was used. Other articles are also renamed in the middle of AfD discussions which are of events that occurred years in the past, and due only to people renaming articles to rename articles. Biographies get moved to "Death of X" during discussions, for people long dead. The daily updates to newsfeeds about this subject doesn't affect the established fact that the child was dead and recovered before the AfD opened, so are unrelated to the renaming of the article. The choice of "Rescue of X" is clearly an odd choice for an article on a person that was already dead and in which the article already says he is dead, at the time the article was renamed. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 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. Tone 14:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21 Air

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

Clearly fails NCORP and I'm wondering if this is paid editing. The sources are either warmed up PR or nonRS or both. Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Addams

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

Recreation of a previously much discussed and deleted article. G4 declined so here we are. The new sources are mostly nonRS or articles about a bus with her picture (alongside others) painted on the side. Written a little too puffery and clearly fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does she pass pornbio? None of the awards pass muster and nominations no longer count. Do you have a policy based argument?Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See in article: she has won a well-known and significant industry award, no scene award - meets of WP:PORNBIO #1. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what are the rs and evidence for this assertion?Spartaz Humbug! 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See in article: she has won a well-known and significant industry award, no scene award - meets of WP:PORNBIO #1. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nightmoves MILf, nope, and two scene awards? I'm confused. How does this BL P meet gng? Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jedidi Haokip

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

Making this a double AfD as I am also including Lara Sharma.

PROD's removed for no reason. Both players fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I-League 2nd Division is not a WP:FPL and neither have enough outstanding coverage from reliable sources to count for GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Muhandes (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of sitting judges of High Courts of India

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

I tagged this article for speedy deletion because it duplicates the content of List of high courts in India. The editor who created the article, User:Sid54126, removed the SD tag. The duplication remains. Mccapra (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn (see below) as original editor has completed their work. Mccapra (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mccapra (talk), This is the extension of the page List of High Courts of India like List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India. It will include all sitting permanent & additional judges of respective high courts in India. So this is the different page from List of High Courts of India. There is no further requirement for deletion of the page. Sid54126 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but it isn’t (yet) an extension of the other article. An article listing sitting judges would be fine, but this article only has a couple of names at the bottom of a table of information we already have, with a note that it’s incomplete. Yes it is! If this is going to be a full table of the names of high court judges I don’t think it’s a good idea to create a mainspace article with just a couple of names. Perhaps this should be moved to draft? Mccapra (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The list as it currently stands is woefully incompletely and largely duplicates an existing page, but it does have potential to turn into a worthwhile list. The creator can continue to work on it in draft space, and then it can be moved to mainspace when and if it is completed. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mccapra (talk), It will take nearly half a month to complete the whole data as it is very much but I'll try to get it in less number of days. It will not be only a couple of names. I want your support also to complete this as a team. All the sources are already given in the page. Thanks Sid54126 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it will take a long time to put this article together. There’s no rush. It’s not something I want to spend time on myself however. The best way of building a large article like this is to do it in draft space rather than main space so you can take your time. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra (talk), if Sid54126 (talk) is feeding this all, we should help him in doing so. He is not writing anything which is irrelevant in the page as far as I read and matched with sources. If he/she is writing relevant stuff in main page, he/she should do this. Sid54126 do it as soon as possible. 2409:4063:211A:F086:DA25:192:EA90:44E0 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2409:4063:211A:F086:DA25:192:EA90:44E0 (talk) for your support.

Hi Mccapra (talk), List is now completed. Now I want your support, Please close this deletion process as it is fully completed now and also it is not the copy of any page. This is completed different page from all which contains all judges of all 25 High Courts of India. Please close this deletion process. Thank youSid54126 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrogression Radio Network

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

Fails WP:GNG. No substantial coverage can be traced. Hitro talk 07:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per this discussion, NACTOR is not met in that the topic has not had multiple significant roles in notable films, in that none of the films mentioned have articles or have otherwise been shown to be notable. GNG has not been shown to be met, and no other argument has been put forth to demonstrate notability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kresh Novakovic

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Sole source is IMDb, which is not a RS by itself alone. He has a Facebook page, but that also is not a reliable source. Rms125a@hotmail.com 06:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The above references don't really have significant coverage, and I can't find any that do. For a source to confirm notability, it has to have discussion of the subject besides just mentioning their existence, or saying that they had such and such role. Gilded Snail (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf Side Story

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre#Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deaf Side Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is about an evidently commendable theatrical play that was staged in 2000 at MacMurray College, in Jacksonville, Illinois, but failed to get attention. The significant mentions of the play that were found are name checks in texts about West Side Story (e.g. here), a mention in The Oxford Handbook of Music and Disability Studies (here), a book dedicated to the play's production (Deaf Side Story: Deaf Sharks, Hearing Jets, and a Classic American Musical) and similar finds. The subject alas does not meet WP:GNG. The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:26, 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 06:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion on the Talk page includes links to two reviews of the book, in the Review of Disability Studies and the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. I also found one in the Boston Globe (17 paras) [39]. So the book meets WP:NBOOK #1 "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." As the discussion on the Talk page suggests, the article could be rewritten to focus on the book (and also include some of the criticisms of the reviewers).
Looking for sources, I found that a play called Deaf Side Story was staged in Ottawa in 1987. I don't know anything more about it - from the description of the play that is the subject of the current article, it seems likely that it was a completely different adaptation of West Side Story. If it was the same one, it would perhaps contribute to the notability of the play, but as it stands, it's just a curious point. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiber the Cruel

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is only linked by lists. Character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia Namenamenamenamename (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 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 06:06, 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. Tone 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Potions

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC according to the article and the 1 source not from YouTube the band's most notable work was a collaboration for the trailer of Sonic Mania. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 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 06:03, 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steppin' Razor (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Comics version of character only appears twice, according to Marvel Wikia; only appears in two episodes of Blade: The Series. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 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 05:53, 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. Keep by strength of arguments. The fact it is an event in a small village does not take away from the national coverage it has received. The fact that there are errors in the article does not mean they can not be replaced by correctly sourced factual information, or else removed. The topic has been shown to be notable, and therefore the topic should be included. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iepenloftspul Jorwert

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

The list of plays is hopelessly wrong in many ways. See the non-exhaustive discussion at Talk:Iepenloftspul Jorwert#Disputed. The Frisian article contains the identical mistakes, and none of the citation helps solve any of the puzzles: plays, authors and years are all in doubt. I recommend WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. My nomination didn't address notability, only gross inaccuracy. Did William Shakespeare write Oliver Twist, or Giovannino Guareschi Die Dreigroschenoper? just to pick two glaring examples. Narky Blert (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO that is not a deletion criterion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to rip out the current list, and rewrite it from scratch (I'll try to get to it), and then let it evolve from there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. National coverage seems to suggest notability beyond 'local activity in a village'. Also commenting to say that this article was apparently nominated for deletion due to its inaccuracies rather than notability (or lack thereof), which I don't think should be standard AfD practice (WP:ATD). Gilded Snail (talk) 00:36, 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 05:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the list of plays has to go as unsourced and disputed material. The rest of the article seems fine; this seems to be a regional event in Frisian-speaking areas of the Netherlands and isn't the equivalent of a high-school play. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not unsourced, it has a source for year and play. Moreover, it has been cleaned up so that all possibly wrong items have been removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 16 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. Lourdes 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girlpope

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

Notability Gccwang (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 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 redirect to Pepper (band). Tone 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Bollinger

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician. Rms125a@hotmail.com 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss World 2008. As a WP:ATD that was proposed. Two Weak Keep (with an emphasis of Weak) voters are using a mix of WP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:ITSNOTABLE (just citing a policy without any reasoning as to why, and notable just because), which is to avoid in AfD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iana Varnacova

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

Vanacova lacks significant sourcing. The one source in the article is not even a working link. My search for sources brought up nothing reliable. Just a directory listing for danesport competition, which I assume is the same person, but there is not enough information there to even be sure. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain -- With all due respect, but this really does not endow her with any particular notability as far as I can tell after translating it. Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 18 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. Michig (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswindz (band)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I cannot find articles or other sources discussing the band in a significant way. ... discospinster talk 04:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These pages are the result of determined efforts since 2015 by four accounts:
Hilettook (David Mobley Songwriter Producer) • Davidmobleymusic • Danielcraye • Ihelptocontribute
all of which have been blocked as spam-only accounts, to publicize David Mobley and his various activities. All remaining pages they created should be deleted as spam and salted.
David Mobley (entrepreneur) • David Mobley (musician) (add David Mobley (songwriter) • David Mobley (producer))
Crosswindz (band) (add Crosswindz)
Wonder Wafers Air Fresheners (product) (add Wonder Wafers Air Fresheners • Wonder Wafers)
– Athaenara ✉ 20:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this article, plus David Mobley (entrepreneur) and all related are weakly sourced, consisting mostly of insignificant promotional coverage. All appear to be vanity pages. This subject may be better served by simply maintaining his own website; wikipedia is not for that purpose. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Mobley (entrepreneur)

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

This article has been around for a few years but it's basically PR. He's got some association and lots of photos with some notable individuals but I can't find multiple reliable sources that discuss himself. The two references that come close are "The One Magazine" (which is not the same as One magazine), and Jammerzine, which has no author/interviewer named. (Neither of these publications have Wikipedia articles either.) Every other source I can find that is of any substance basically says exactly the same thing as what's in the Wikipedia article, almost word-for-word. ... discospinster talk 04:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned article to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Please know this article is in reference to the Music business industry and Air fresheners industry which are professions that I believe need to be taken into consideration of when deciding of the citations being valid in it's form for these particular professions and industries. It is also written in Wikipedia form, which is an encyclopedic form as if someone who did not know these professions would be able to understand them. Ihelptocontribute (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I have added the author/interview to the Jammerzine citation, and made a few other fixes as well that can be seen in the View History section of this article. The One Magazine is an Online Magazine Publisher. Is Wikipedia only meant to be for big enterprise businesses and publications, and not SMBs, small to mid size businesses and publications? I believe all businesses should be recognized to properly build the Wikipedia database for guidelines of businesses and living people. I believe not only should major publishers play a role in citations, other SMB publications should be recognized as well. Having only top level news sources and citations in Wikipedia will leads to false and swayed news being retrieved from only top level sources. The references provided do display that David Mobley is a living person with reputable status in his professions with real work that can be seen from the citations. I see it was mentioned that information was word for word, how else am I able to let the facts speak for themselves when the facts are simply written out as they should be? Please help me to understand, as I am open to help to abiding by Wiki's policies, but please help me to understand what exactly needs to be edited or changed beyond this, if you could help to clean the article before deleting also to help the community first before deleting someone's work they spent a lot of time researching to add encyclopedic information to the wiki online database would be greatly appreciated. Please help to contribute, just as I am doing without deletion, as I believe this article is very clean in terms of reference and by letting the facts speak for themselves.
Ihelptocontribute (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock ☆ Bri (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These pages are the result of determined efforts since 2015 by four accounts:
Hilettook (David Mobley Songwriter Producer) • Davidmobleymusic • Danielcraye • Ihelptocontribute
all of which have been blocked as spam-only accounts, to publicize David Mobley and his various activities. All remaining pages they created should be deleted as spam and salted.
David Mobley (entrepreneur) • David Mobley (musician) (add David Mobley (songwriter) • David Mobley (producer))
Crosswindz (band) (add Crosswindz)
Wonder Wafers Air Fresheners (product) (add Wonder Wafers Air Fresheners • Wonder Wafers)
– Athaenara ✉ 18:30, 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. Tone 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddle+kind

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

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. It has some sources, but they are a combination of in-passing and what seems to be very niche, almost blog/SNS-like level of coverage, some of which is part WP:INTERVIEW. The awards received by the company seem relatively niche as well. So, overall, no in-depth, reliable coverage, and not much to support notability. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added more coverage today. Yes, some of the mentions are passing mentions, but the company has really been featured in some major news sources including People magazine, ABC News, Fox5 and other reputable locations. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but when I read about this doll company, the employment they are offering in Peru, the charitable tie-in with their product and the coverage they are getting both from stars and news sources - I thought they would be Wiki-worthy. All the best, Rainydaysstarrynights (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have significant coverage, needs improvement but not worthy of deletion. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 09:31, 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. Lourdes 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Washington's 26th state senate district special election

2013 Washington's 26th state senate district special election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An individual local election is not inherently notable. No sources or explanation article why this one is. Reywas92Talk 20:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State is not local. This is an election to a state office rather than a county or city office, and state senators are inherently notable. Perhaps merge into preceding general election article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, 2012 Washington State Senate election could be an appropriate place to merge this as an election to the same legislature. Even under an assumption that the people, who may receive ongoing coverage of their legislative activities, are notable, the election is not. There are 7,383 state legislators in the US who may themselves be notable, but each election held every two or four years is not notable individually as inherited from their participants. Reywas92Talk 20:44, 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 04:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete it? User:Lucifero4
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State elections are generally notable, and special elections that caused a change in the majority composition of the legislature are definitely notable. This one did receive enough coverage from outside its immediate local area (similar to the 2017 45th district special) that it can warrant a full article. It's a bit too soon to kill this one off. SounderBruce 08:47, 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 delete. Tone 12:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Simes

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure back in November. This is still an advertorialized article, created by the subject's own colleague in violation of our conflict of interest rules, about a filmmaker who has no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claims here entail awards from the non-notable small fry and/or "buy yourself a fake award for public relations purposes" classes of film festivals, not from major notability-conferring film festivals on the order of Toronto or Sundance or Berlin or Cannes, and the amount of media coverage that TheDomain added at the time of the original discussion is not enough to get the subject over WP:GNG: the stuff that's substantively about Tom Simes is entirely local to his own hometown, while the stuff that expands beyond the purely local all just glancingly namechecks his existence in the process of being about other people he worked with. So this simply is not sourced well enough to get Tom Simes over GNG, but nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 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 04:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infra-Worlders

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only appears in two issues, as far as I can tell. Page is only linked by lists. A Google search for "infra-worlders" doesn't turn up any notable results. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:05, 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. Tone 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Mosquito Research

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

Indexed almost nowhere, listed on Beall's list, no impact. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:34, 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. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin Academy Preparatory School

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

This article was instigated through the Articles for Creation process, and was declined for having no independent sources. The nominator immediately resubmitted without any changes, and was again declined by @Boothsift:. It was then resubmitted *again* in less than twelve hours, and this time accepted by @Legacypac:, who stated that he watches out for this nominator's submissions so he can approve them, without engaging with the reasons it had been twice declined. It was then redirected to Oberlin College by a third editor, @Justlettersandnumbers:, and undone by the nominator. Two more editors, @Barkeep49: and @Bradv:, endorsed Justlettersandnumbers' decision on the talk page, but Legacypac has reverted any merge.

The entire AfC process breaks down if users can have an article that doesn't meet basic notability guidelines, get declined twice by two different reviewers, and then just keep resubmitting without making changes until they get an answer they like. A couple more links (to Oberlin College's Tumblr page and the school newspaper) have been added since, reinforcing that there appear to be no sources for this whatsoever outside of the school. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A core point of this statement is incorrect. I saw the decline by Boothsift (because I watch FloridaArmy's talkpage) and on review, disagreed with the decline so I resubmitted and accepted the page [40] not FloridaArmy. FloridaArmy is not trying to game the system he works hard to improve pages, usually on very historic topics. There are now plenty of sources outside the school's own records. Since the school has been closed for 100+ years none of the weblinked sources are actually self published qnyway. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination by an editor that flat out lied about my interaction with the article here [41]. Follow the link to my comment which they blatantly misrepresented on the talkpage and may have made this nomination to make a point against my acceptance of the page after they declined it.
This school opened in 1833 and closed in 1916 (over one hundred years ago). Not a short period of time. There is zero possible promotional value to anyone or thing in having this page. No one except the interested reader benefits from it. No one who even attended the school is alive to enjoy having their school get a Wikipedia page. So the normal reasons we shy away from having pages on organizations are not applicable.
Is it notable? It admitted African American and female students in a time when this was very unusual - its sister college (which it started as a department of) being one of the first post secondary schools to admit African American and female students in the United States. The US battled through desegregation 130 years after Oberlin opened ad a school that accepted all colors and both sexes. That certainly makes this an unusual and notable institution. The town of Oberlin is named for school (the college and academy later split). Numerous alumni have articles.
Perhaps there is a case to merge in the history of the academy with the college since they were the same entity for some years, however the College page is already fairly long so there is also a case to WP:SPINOUT an article on the school that was spunout of the college in real life. Frankly, if a historic school can't have a page, but we accept all kinds of athletes and cartoon charactors etc what are we trying to build exactly with Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be any sources about the school's admission policy - we only know they admitted African American and female students because they have some notable alumni and there are actually-decent sources about the alumni that reference where they went to school. The inability to reference any sources about the school's actual policy (considering that notability is being largely staked on it) illustrates how little there actually is in the way of reliable sources for this topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oberlin College does have good sourcing for admission policies around African Americans, and this school was a unit of the College for the first few years in question. Pretty obviously the inclusive admission policies of the College applied to it's prep school too. Some refs could be transferred over. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to operate under the assumption that references to the college apply to the academy because none exist for the academy, that's yet another argument for merging, not keeping. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The College had groundbreaking admissions policy which obviously it's high school division followed. Do you have sources showing the math departmemt or the english department had groundbreaking admissions policies or do we accept that the college policies applied across the school? Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But if no one wrote about the high school division specifically, which given the effort that has been belatedly put into finding sources appears to be the case, then there's no basis for it to have an article separate from the college. We don't have articles on the math department or the english department of the college either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the criteria we use for judging high schools if this high school were open today with this level of sourcing, which let's be clear includes quite a few clearly notable alum, this would be a slam dunk notable topic and is never going to get deleted at AfD. The fact that it's historical means further sourcing is going to be harder to come by than a contemporary article but this doesn't change the notability of this topic. It is, clearly and indisputably by current Wikipedia standards, notable in my mind. However, that does not mean that a separate article is the best way to serve our readers this information. I will make a formal !vote sometime before the seven days are up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a merge might be a good way to serve our readers but instantly redirecting without a merge is not serving anyone nor is removing the title via AfD Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a merge either, obviously. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have now spent what I consider a fairly indepth amount of time researching this and all mentions are fleeting. I think it should be merged to Oberlin College but I hope some history or education professor takes the time to go through the archives at the College and write a paper on this because it definitely seems like there is an interesting history to be written - we just don't know what it is yet and might not ever so having its own article is not in the best interests of our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite get to keep given the lack of any sources which really cover this in SIGCOV but have struck my merge !vote as I am less convinced given the effort editors has put into this that a merge would be in the best interests of our readers. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mission Matters and Schooling the Freed People listed by Roy below are the SIGCOV I'd been hoping for. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to Oberlin College. The topic is interesting, but I fear the school itself fails the GNG, and there's way too little written about it for it to be its own article. All of the sources that I can find mention the academy within the context of the college, and there's nothing that suggests that it's independently notable. However, the fact that this is not mentioned at all within the college article is a situation that needs to be rectified, which is why I'm voting to merge rather than delete or redirect. Bradv🍁 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to keep. While I would still prefer this be part of the larger college article, there appear to be enough sources now to consider this independently notable. Bradv🍁 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect, fails WP:NCORP – which has absolutely nothing to do with COI, and to which it is not less subject because it closed in 1916 (some fairly fundamental misunderstandings there). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP under schools references WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES where we have "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And right below it it explicitly states that high schools should not be presumed to be notable just because they exist, and that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is an arguement to avoid in deletion discussions. I'm not making SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a stand alone arguement either. You can't just dismiss our policy statements amd guidelines when they go directly against your opinion. We have sources that show the high school existed. We have kept lots of pages on high schools that are a heck of a lot less historic with fewer notable connected people. We follow precident at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the most recent RfC reached no consensus. I think that everyone posting here so far knows the score on this matter as would any potential closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced and notable. And if merged, merging to Oberlin, Ohio#History is a better target, but one that also shows why it's silly to merge - it'd be a disproportionate amount of coverage about one school. SnowFire (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Weak Merge The sourcing isn't fantastic and wouldn't customarily be sufficient to pass NCORP, however, we've generally presumed notability on secondary schools subject to the minimum criteria of its existence being verifiable. Based on the sources, I have no reason to believe this school didn't exist. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exceptionally notable college preparatory high school that educated African Americans and women including the founder of the ANC in South Africa, artists, authors etc. Many notable alumni, faculty, and administrators. A merge would not make sense and would be undue. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better to search for for "Oberlin Academy" rather than "Oberlin Academy Preparatory School":
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, I agree. Thanks for putting the find sources toolbar for that name on the page. I will note for the closer that this is how I did the overwhelming bulk of my searching and my thinking on those results are reflected in my !vote above. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable old time secondary school. It it changed names a couple of times, but it was an accredited secondary school that closed in 1915 - and that would be enough to make it a keeper. This, however, was a notable secondary school because it prepared "negro" youth to enter university. It is covered INDEPTH in scholarly books including Elusive Utopia: The Struggle for Racial Equality in Oberlin, Ohio, Gary Kornblith, Carol Lasser, LSU Press, 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory I'm a somewhat reluctant merge for the other reasons you've distressed. What do you see that suggests INDEPTH coverage in Elusive Utopia? I spent time looking at what I saw and it didn't suggest that level to me but perhaps I was missing something or analyzed it wrong. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was more that I find sourcing everywhere I look. Page has enormous potential for improvement, for example, I just searched a different way and found Fanny Jackson Coppin, added her and what I found about her to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is quite an exaggeration: editors have failed to find sources for even basic things about the school, such as who it admitted, and the tiny amount of sourcing that has been turned up is inevitably in internal college sources. Turning up yet another alumni (or staff member) because enough sourcing exists about them to list a passing reference to where they went to school doesn't mean that the school is notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drover's Wife, I'm just doing the sort of routine checks I do at AfD, such as searching JSTOR for Oberlin + "Preparatory department". That search got 136 hits. They won't all be valid, let alone INDEPTH, and I certainly haven's had time to read that many papers. But this, along with the many hits on gBooks, most of which, as you say, are brief mentions of individuals who attended. Nevertheless, I am confident of notability. For one thing, Not many 19th century secondary schools have this impressive a list of notable alumni. For another, we really don't delete secondary schools that have sourcing. Even though there is not that much SIGCOV of most American high schools. Here, I can't help but think that someone with the patience to read those JSTOR hits - or Fanny Jackson Coppin memoir - would find material form which ot build a pretty good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory I don't know if we found exactly the same JSTOR hits but I spent about an hour and a half looking through what I found and was underwhelmed with what I found. I think there is enough documentary evidence between what I found and what is clearly in the Oberlin archives for something to be written - an interesting something. And if this ends up as keep, well great. There's no question for me that this school was real and was notable at the time. However, does our tying together these crumbs help our readers gain more insight and knowledge or does making a more concise version of it that emphasizes what we do know best, help them more? I came down on the side of the latter but have great sympathy for those who came down on the side of the former. But I think we should be honest and not say that's what we're doing not that there are great sources that we just haven't found. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moseyed here from DRV. Two points. 1) Can one of the keep !voters explain which the WP:THREE best sources for keeping this article are? I leaning merge, but these are difficult sources to sift through. 2) The article has expanded quite a bit since it was nominated per WP:HEY, but I'm distressed this was moved from AfC before it should have been. We should not be accepting or denying articles based on who created the article, but rather on the content of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a merge/redirect !voter, but the apparent notability (or not) of the article hasn't changed since it was accepted in any meaningful way. I would not have accepted at AfC personally, but the criteria for AfC is Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace. Considering this is likely to be a borderline AfD either way it goes the assessment, especially given general general outcomes at AfD around high schools, that it would likely survive AfD seems like an entirely fair reviewer judgement and thus well with-in policy and procedure. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it because it is a notable old high school. As school articles go it is fairly long with quite a bit of info that will help the reader searching for more imfo on the school (pointing at offline sources for example). We know when, where and why it started. We know it (as part of the College) had groundbreaking admission policies. We have one of the longest lists of Wiki notable alumni I've seen on a school article. We knew about the historic building it operated in. We know where to find it's archives. We even link to (and could upload as it is out of copyright) a photo of a graduating class collected by the new Smithsonian Museum of African American History. My highschool has a long standing article but lacks notable alumni, any interesting admittance policy, has way fewer sources, and no museum cares about it's class photos. Absolutely the page could be expanded but that is not a reason to delete what we have put together already. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my 3 cents. 1.) I agree with points made about about the need to disallow end-runs around rules made by The Drover's Wife. 2.) However, when declined at AFC, this was a page [42] about an American High school reliably sourced to the archives of Oberlin College but lacking SECONDARY. Nevertheless, it was always going to be a KEEP at AfD because we keep high schools, because it was already had some reliable (albeit not SECONDARY,) sources, and because many additional sources exist. 3.) WP:HEY, Barkeep's assertion that "the article hasn't changed since it was accepted in any meaningful way." out of date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now no longer leaning merge but am voting keep based on the sources presented by RoySmith. I still think it was improperly accepted from AfC, but it's been greatly improved since then now there's been a spotlight on it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't agree with our policy of always keeping secondary schools based only on WP:V, but that does seem to be our policy, and this meets that in spades. As for WP:THREE, I'd put forth:
    • "Mission Matters: Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, and the Schooling of Southern Blacks, 1861-1917". History of Education Quarterly.
    • "Antebellum Black Coeds at Oberlin College." Women's Studies Newsletter.
    • "Oberlin's Catalogue". New York Times.
all of which I found by examining in detail the first 6 of the 27 references in the article. So I don't think there's any question of meeting WP:N as well. For the complaint that this is tied to the university, we've got plenty of those. We suffer badly from WP:RECENTISM; for a historical subject such as this, you need to keep in mind that the Oberlin Preparatory Department wasn't prescient enough to have their own web site indexed by the search engines. That means you need to dig a bit harder to find sources, and re-calibrate your notability meter to account for the information processing and archiving technology that existed in the 1830's.
That being said, I agree that the history behind this wasn't AfC working at its best. When a draft is rejected, immediately resubmitting it with only trivial changes is not what you should be doing. But, there's other fora for debating that. Here, we're just concerned with whether we should keep this article in it's current state, and the answer to that is clearly yes. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to violate the "three, but no more than three" rule (especially since that's my own essay), but Schooling the Freed People has pretty good coverage. Oberlin Academy is called out as one of the two major secondary schools for black teachers (the other being Institute for Colored Youth) in post civil war America. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An extensive treatment of "Oberlin Institute" is in Oberlin, Hotbed of Abolitionism. They seem to use the name to refer to the entire college, but there's a fair amount of material about the preparatory department, including a 1855 class photo. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found another excellent source: A history of Oberlin College from its foundation through the civil war. If you download the full PDF from archive.org, be patient. It's a 41 MB file and their servers are pretty slow. It'll take a few minutes. It looks like the full text (as plain text) is also available at https://www.gospeltruth.net/oberlinhistory.htm. Chapter XI is mostly about the preparatory school. There's a copy of the original announcement in the PDF, on an unnumbered plate sheet between pages 122 and 123. For those keeping WP:N score, this is not an independent source, but it's still a good one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per basic common sense. This is clearly a much more notable school than many currently existing ones. It appears that some editors have lost sight of the basic fact that this is an encyclopedia, and that this is obviously a topic that an encyclopedia should cover. This is the type of ignorant deletion nomination that made me give up editing with my userid years ago, and, after I was persuaded to start editing again a month or two ago, makes me think that this place is even more being run by people with no understanding of common sense than it was then. The nomination statement describes a broken WP:AFC process, by which one editor's opinion becomes the last word on whether an article is acceptable, rather than anything wrong with this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of notable people went to school there. I agree all the coverage in books adds to its notability. Dream Focus 04:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears notable enough. Orientls (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the excellent research done by RoySmith. I'd also like to note that the statement The Drover's Wife linked in the nomination from Legacypac does not demonstrate that Legacypac watches FloridaArmy's talk page so he can approve them [FloridaArmy's drafts]. That implies that Legacypac, as an AfC reviewer, exercises favouritism, when in reality, tackling the huge AfC backlog is often best done by reviewing articles by the most prolific article creators first. It's a common practice at both AfC and NPP, we even have tools to aid us in identifying the most prolific article creators (this and this) and if we didn't do it, the backlog would most likely be twice as big. I often search by keywords to spot advert drafts such as "renowned" or "legendary". I strongly advise the nominator to retract the statement regarding this. SITH (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pages on Notable topics don't need to be fully developed to be placed in mainspace for improvement. The test is "will the page survive AfD?" which this one was always going to do. At very worst, this page was a merge candidate with the College, which is just an editorial decision or talkpage discussion not a delete discussion. Given we tend to keep high schools that can be verified to exist - the page passed V just fine. The ill considered attempt to delete page has nicely helped it along onto something quite nice. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is a good demonstration of why pages about notable topics should be in mainspace, where they can undergo the wiki process of collaborative improvement, rather than hidden away in draft space where nobody apart from the author can find them, something that goes completely against the principle of WP:OWN. The way that WP:AFC is used to prevent this process is disruptive to the development of this encyclopedia. It's just a pity that you don't apply the same principles to other clearly notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the reviewing instructions, If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. The instructions for WP:AFC are not conducive to the collaborative building of this encyclopedia, and encourage a sense of ownership. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note That may or may not be true, but it is a topic for another forum. Some poor admin is going to have to plow through this already badly bloated AfD. The issue here is whether or not this article meets our guidelines and should be kept, or not. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Information Technology

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

Indexed nowhere, possibly lying about being in DOAJ. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NJOURNALS and likely predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See DOAJ link above. It's possible they removed the claim after having been called on it. Not super important either way. It's also possible this is journal with the same name as a legit one, but if there is a legit journal of the same name, it isn't notable anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not they are in DOAJ is irrelevant, because that is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals (they try to include any OA journal, as long as it is not predatory). Similarly, whether or not this is a predatory journal is not very important, because that has no bearing on notability (non-predatory journals can be non-notable and predatory ones can be notable). What is important is that this journal is not indexed in any selective databases and that there are no independent in-depth sources to be found anywhere, so this fails both GNG and NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Game

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

No significant coverage and fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been hesitant to put a point of view on this issue for some time because searches for "The Last game" contain so much "noise" that I haven't been able to find anything on the subject. Still, time has gone by and the only source provided appears to be a fan blog (that's all I can call it) AND the page doesn't contain the phrase "The Last Game" at all. If the subject is notable, the author or authors of the article need to do a better job of making it clear so the information can be verified. Based on the information found and searching I have done (combined with the article itself), I find this subject fails WP:GNG. If that's not enough, I'm going with the policy ignore all rules and maintain that removing the article will make Wikipedia better. If an enthusiastic editor wishes to userfy, take custody, and work on it -- that would be okay; but without that the article should be removed. I can't even tell if this documentary even existed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They Call Him Sasquatch

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:04, 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) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Robert Todd Lincoln. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln II

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

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Halliwell

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple more items of coverage found that are not cited in the article ([43], [44]), but it's all quite local, and I don't see that the band made enough impact to justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination, though I would encourage a reasonable waiting period. This was a seriously bloated discussion and I concede that another admin might have called it a Keep. But after reading it through a couple times I am not persuaded there is a consensus here. (Is this a good time to ask for a raise?) Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Hilder

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

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

  • Reply to Ronz, that's not a good suggestion as I edit what I like and what takes my fancy or what I find interesting. Nothing more!! Nobody pays, thanks, buys me lunch or a drink. Only thing is the satisfaction that I get from expanding and adding. The mention you made here - Quote: - - ("This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen, and a BLP. My first thought was a WP:UPE or a similiar WP:COI, but the editor says that is not the case"), can be taken the wrong way and add prejudice to the article. Here's another example of my expansion. Take Deane Waretini who I only had a small amount of knowledge of. Only a one line article as per: Revision as of 03:19, 16 November. Now see what I brought it up to as per: Revision as of 10:27, 22 September 2016. I not only know 20 times more about Waretini than I did when I started, I know more about Waretini and related info than the average person now. And what do I get out of it all? Well, one thing is a I learn more about the subject as I go. And I don't just do it for my satisfaction. I do it for others. I love info! And if I can help share it as do the many other editors then .... That's my payment. Karl Twist (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment directed to ජපස aka jps - Hello ජපස aka jps, I see that you nominated the Anthony J. Hilder article for deletion. You said " It's one of the worst cases of Wikipedia abuses I've seen in some time" - . Well, I can tell you that there is no abuse on my part. Nothing intentional. And I totally reject what your using that term. Unintentionally though it may be, it gives unfair prejudice to this article to which I have been a major contributor. Yes, a "Spectacularly long article" it may seem. There is a lot to the subject and a lot of info on him out there. On Google News there were 3 articles about Hilder. They're not there anymore for some reason. I love expanding articles, adding stuff to them and linking them in with other articles. Believe it or not, I was quite pleased with myself that I expanded the article from what it was when I first came across it to the size that it was just prior to being nominated for deletion. Yes, I realize that there was some stuff here and there that had to be trimmed. Actually I going to put in some more. As you can see, there's more.
    Anyway, take audio-pioneer Lou Dorren. This is what the article looked like before I started work on it 13 August 2015. Then this is what I expanded it to. See here 13 July 2017. Turns out Lou has a place in California music history as well.
    There are so many things under represented in Wikipedia. Articles about the contributions by African Americans in the film and music industry is one. Surf music isn't covered enough either. This subject, namely Anthony J. Hilder is an integral part of surf music development. To deny Hilder's involvement by saying he is not notable is to deny a major and integral part of surf music culture and history as well as California music history.
    And yeah, he's in the conspiracy game and is a 911 Truther. That's info that shouldn't be discarded. Yes, I know articles about 911 Truthers, so-called 9/11 conspiracy theorists is frowned upon by some. So what are we supposed to do?
    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it needs a lot or work (made a start), and many (but not all) of the sources are iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please identify the sources that demonstrate notability? --Ronz (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who Put the Bomp No.14, Fall 1975 - Page 12 may do (but I canot verify) [[46]] (trivial to be sure, but not alone, by a long chalk (i cannot believe that someone with this number of mentions has not got more RS going on about his musical carer)) [[47]] Local but may well be an RS. Surfin' Guitars: Instrumental Surf Bands of the Sixties is used 3 times (unable to verify). There are others I cannot check (for a variety of reason). This is enough to convince me he may be notable, but not for the reason we are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It really goes without saying how ridiculous this is. Just because there’s citation overkill doesn’t mean any of these damn near 300 sources give notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is neither anything notable about this person nor reliable. He just seems to be the run of the mill conspiracy theorist, which can be found by the hundreds on the Internet, with nothing new, original, or influential to say, post, or write. Paul H. (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


A partial discography from the Tony Hilder catalogue
Catalogue


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

  • Addition - I have now put in the List of misc albums table under the List of misc singles table. There are more albums out there, but I think I have put in enough to give folks the general idea of Hilder's contribution to the surf genre.
    Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As I mention on my user page, I've had a variety of direct and indirect associations with the Alaskan broadcasting industry dating back to 1982. In this guise, I had a fleeting association with Hilder during his stint here in Alaska 30-some years ago, when he broadcast for several hours nightly during the early years of KEAG. A lot of the things he said about his days in Hollywood sounded suspect to me; for instance, he once claimed to have discovered Jill St. John. When I searched for him on IMDB many years ago, the only credit that came up was one for scoring a documentary about a long-defunct Native American community in Los Angeles. Anyway, most radio station articles are badly skewed towards "this article exists because there's an FCC license and/or some bottom-feeding media company involved" and say little or nothing about the station's history. Hilder told me at the time that he had a long-term association with a Beverly Hills resident named Jerome Martz and that Martz put radio stations on the air in various places primarily to give Hilder and perhaps others a platform to air conspiracy-related talk shows. From that, I got the impression that Anchorage wasn't the only place where Hilder did this show. The point that's pertinent to this discussion is that Hilder did in fact receive some fairly significant coverage from local media during his time here, and that there should be scraps of evidence available via news archive services. The one-sided discussion during the first AFD is an element of a real scourge upon the encyclopedia, in that it's okay to ignore reliable sources found on news archive services and that we're supposed to be a mindless repetition of whatever Google hands you on a silver platter, ultimately making Wikipedia useful only to the lazy and/or stupid. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From what's being presented, this appears to be a classic case of insufficient notability in Wikipedia's terms. While there's apparently quite of lot of information out there on this guy, what we lack is text which performs analysis & synthesis of his life and work to give us knowledge which we can summarize. So it appears the material available would be great for writing a new secondary work, but Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary work, a "summary of accepted knowledge" drawing its content from predominantly secondary sources. I can't see how what's available is amenable to encyclopedic treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above. No so! To say ... "this appears to be a classic case of insufficient notability" is very incorrect and a term "Classic" gives a very incorrect picture! First of all, Anthony J. Hilder or Tony Hilder as he was known back in the 1960s, has made a significant contribution to the genre. This has been recognized by Who Put the Bomp magazine, in its article about him, "The Tony Hilder Story", Fall 1975 (No. 14) issue. Article says, Hilder's name as publisher, producer etc., appears on countless records, both 45s and albums. It also says ...... "Any attempt at comprehensive survey of the surf music scene without mentioning Tony Hilder would be flagrantly incomplete". He's also referred to in another article in the issue, "Surfin' in the San Joaquin" by the same authors. Steven Otfinoski in his The Golden Age of Rock Instrumentals, on page Page 140, confirms that Hilder was prolific. There've been other articles about him as well. His status is confirmed in CD Review, Volume 12, page 70, where Hilder is referred to as "legendary surf guru". His label and productions have produced acts that are notable and even some minor hits. His production and label provided music for a notable film as well as music in the film Pulp Fiction. There's coverage of him enough in other articles to prove notability. There's enough info in accepted knowledge sources about him, many other than his involvement in the music industry and his prominence in the surf genre. What's suggested by what you say could be applied to half the articles in Wikipedia and they could be zapped out tomorrow. But it's not the case with this. With what we have here on Hilder there's more than adequate info, refs to secure the article. Karl Twist (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing a lot of brief passing mentions but what I'm looking for is some kind of sustained writing about the guy. Could you say a bit more about "The Tony Hilder Story". Who was the author? Isn't Who Put the Bomp a very obscure fanzine which is not what we'd consider WP:RS? In short: show me your very best source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above II and (regarding the status of Who Put the Bomp ) - There's a lot more than brief passing mentions!! OK, about "The Tonly Hilder Story". It was written by John Blair and Bill Smart. You can see it on the Association for Recorded Sound Collections website. Here Bibliography of Discographies Annual Cumulation -- 1975 (Page 42). And who is John Blair? Well, he is a respected authority on surf music. The releases he has contributed liner notes for include, The Challengers - Surfbeat, Sundazed Records SC 6029, 1994, Dick Dale & the Del-Tones - King of The Surf Guitar: The Best of Dick Dale & The Del-Tones, Rhino Records R2 75756, 1989, The Torquays and VA comps such as Lost Legends of Surf Guitar, Vol. IV, Sundazed Records SC 11143, 2005, etc as per. Magazines include Discoveries, Goldmine, Guitar Player and Vintage Guitar etc, as per. No! Who Put the Bomp is not "a very obscure fanzine". See, Who Put the Bomp was a magazine by the late great Greg Shaw of the record label with the same name. Mentioned here in Media and Popular Music by By Peter Mills. The mag was referred to as a "pioneering rock'n roll mag" by Chris Morris in Billboard in its October 30, 1999 issue. Says it here. I know a fair bit about the mag. It's been sourced by Record Collector and mags about 60s music and Punk. Shindig. Having an interest in the Surf music genre, I check things out. Lenny Kaye a Rolling Stone contributor worked for the mag. It also launched the careers of music journalists Lester Bangs and Griel Marcus. See here. Anyway, back to Who Put the Bomp, the magazine is held in high esteem and (as Billboard puts it), a "pioneering magazine. It's outlaw status is a matter of fact. Simon Sheikh of e-flux confirms this. In Journal #63 - March 2015 Circulation and Withdrawal, Part II: Withdrawal. The mag is a valued source for 60s surf music, neo-surf, punk. etc. A respected, reliable source.
    Oh, and like John Blair of Who Put the Bomp doing liner notes, Hilder now out of the music game for some years did in the 1990s for punk and weird & wonderful groups on the Hillsdale label such as The Trashwomen, Jackie And The Cedrics, Boss Martians , The King Normals, and The Tiki Men etc. Karl Twist (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above III, why are you spacing things out like you are? Why don't you put your replies in the normal flow configuration? Karl Twist (talk)
  • Reply to the above IV, Yes I have access to it. Unsure of the publisher and that doesn't matter. The article starts on page 12 and continues on page 13. It talks about Hilder's time at Kent and Modern Records etc. Other labels he did. Producing bands etc. Stuff about his wife providing vocalizations on "Church Key" and his move to the right wing and also connection with Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and to his selling products in the 1970s etc. That's why it's called "The Tony Hilder Story". It's an article and a discography. ...... The magazine is respected and has been sourced by major rock pubs. According to The Guardian, the magazine expanded in the 1970s and morphed into the. record label. According to music magazine, Ugly Things, Who Put the Bomp was a "seminal rock fanzine".
    So, what do we have here? Well, we have .... a "pioneering rock'n roll mag" (according to Billboard, which is also a seminal rock ranzine (according to Ugly Things), which was run by Greg Shaw who according to The Guardian) was assistant head of creative services for United Artists and edited Phonograph Record, doing an article about a man who, (according to CD Review) is a "legendary Surf Guru" etc, etc. And the referred to as pioneering seminal magazine says ..... "Any attempt at comprehensive survey of the surf music scene without mentioning Tony Hilder would be flagrantly incomplete".
    BTW: You still have to fix the other spacing error for your entry at 10:17, 25 January 2019. Karl Twist (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pioneering" rings alarm bells. What we want is settled knowledge. This source doesn't sound very promising. The publisher does matter as if it's self-published (as most fanzines ares) it's not usable here per WP:BLPSPS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. Scrips and scraps of information in various sources do not sufficient notability make. There would seem to be enough primary material "out there" for somebody to write a reasonable secondary piece on this guy, but until that exists (or is found) Hilder is not a suitable subject for encyclopedic treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC); Amended to keep in light of sourced unearthed below. 13:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to the above - Great choice of words by the way, "Scrips and scraps of information". Ha! You've ignored the obvious facts about Hilder's contribution to surf music that has been documented. The coverage in Who Put the Bomp and other books relateing to the Surf Genre. He's notable in that he he's been covered in publications about the surf genre. He has produced , composed more than a couple of classic songs in surf genre, "Surf Bird" was one, etc. He's been covered in acceptable, reliable articles. Also his Bio on AllMusic says he dealt with major labels. He has made a significant contribution to the genre! OK, music aside for now. Seems he appeared on TV many times, more than the times he was kicked off which includeLou Gordon's TV show (see The Owosso Argus-Press, August 9, 1971 - Page 13 TV Host Clips a Right-Winger). That was also talked about in the interview of Hilder in the Los Angeles Free Press, (August 4, 1972 Part Two, P. 6), Gordon's show was on Ch. 15, Kaiser Broadcasting station. I know he's interviewed Republican politician George V. Hansen on tv about the Panama Canal. The 3 page article about Hilder, and interview (see Los Angeles Free Press, August 4, 1972 Part Two, Pages 6 to 8. article: "Free Rightist Interview) on page 7 says he was the director of various organizations COBRA (Committees Opposed to Racism and Bigotry in America), and the founder of BBC (Boycott British Committee). Also on the page it says he was a member of the Free Rightist Movement (A Libertarian organization). So he would have appeared on TV multiple times. His status in politics and radio host (though not easy to track down immediately) is shown in very reliable sources.
    The reason why there's a desire to delete this article appears to be because of the fact that Hilder has prominence in the Truth movement, involvement with people like Mark Dice, Myron Fagan, Anthony Sutton, Senior FBI whistle blower Ted Gunderson, and Bill Cooper the activist. So in a bid to clean up the tin foil hat nonsense we delete a notable, important and integral part of surf music and California Music history! Oh, and Hilder also recorded Latino artists too that are not mentioned in the discography. Karl Twist (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice to the closing admin
    There's an issue here that needs to be addressed. I ask that you to please extend the time for another week. First of all, this article should have been listed in the list of Music-related deletion discussions category. It hasn't, so it had a fair hearing! At 11:45, 23 January 2019, I asked the question, "Shouldn't this have also been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions on the 19th?" and nobody replied. Also because Anthony J. Hilder has been put on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and I believe it has attracted more of a one sided view of the argument. Can we re-run it for another week please and with Hilder listed in the Music related discussions? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing a lot of mentions in book, just a few here [48][49][50][51]. Most of them however appear to be just passing mentions. I'm assuming Karl Twist is claiming notability based on WP:MUSICBIO #7, which he should clearly state to be so if true. He should however recognize that Discogs is not consider a reliable site per WP:RSP, and should avoid filling the article with references that don't contribute to notability, in fact obscuring what might be the useful ones. I'm leaning towards keep, but the article needs tidying up. Hzh (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a train wreck of a debate. I would urge the participants here to cut down on the walls of text and limit themselves to their main arguments. If a subject is notable, all it needs is two or three in-depth sources to show that, not reams and reams of text that I for one am not going to read.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. After a greatly extended period of time for discussion, and a volume of text that would utterly swamp the article under consideration, the actual opinions expressed in the discussion lean much more towards a consensus to keep than towards deletion, and those opinions are supported by reasonable reliance on coverage as discussed and on the effects of an award being won. bd2412 T 05:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Bagh

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable building with only 3 sentences. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the nomination, which includes very substantial and fully-adequate-on-its-own citation. Which includes statement that the U.S. government issued a postage stamp about it. There will surely exist other coverage, too. Perhaps the deletion nomination is a statement of frustration that the article has not been developed, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Tag the article or post complaints/suggestions at its Talk page instead. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Doncram First of all, assume WP:AGF before accusing me of being "frustrated" for the article state and proves you ignored to read my nomination from the top to the bottom, sadly. I never said the article should be cleaned up or that the content in it sucks. Also your vote violates WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES since you are not offering them but claim the coverage will surely exist. And I am refering you again to WP:GNG (so that one source is not enough) and WP:GEOFEAT. The building was not proclaimed as national heritage so it is not even that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I don't think I suggested anything negative. It would be perfectly fine IMO for an editor to be frustrated about the lack of development over the long time frame that you mentioned in your nomination.
    However, sure, another source, found quickly by going to the webpage on Aziz Bagh, website which self-proclaims it has been online since 1996, is the published 2009 book about Aziz Bagh, which is itself on sale and summarized at Amazon books.
    The Amazon summary mentions Aziz Bagh was built in 1899, and that it "was honored with the most prestigious award 'INTACH', Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage on July 27, 1997, 110 years after its construction", too. Is that award the one you regard as "not a notable one"? I dunno, but we do have an article about the Indian National Trust, which seems reputable, having some United Nations consultative status and so on. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, refining a Google news search to search on "Aziz Bagh" using quotation marks brings me to New York Times article: "Returning to Hyderabad, Once a Land of Princes and Palaces", New York Times-Jan 23, 2015 with snippet "I visited family friends at the neo-Classical Aziz Bagh, where seven generations have lived since 1899 in a three-acre compound so bucolic ...". I don't have access to the article myself, but that seems like a substantial mention. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were implying I hated the article because it has no development. Trust me, I know about WP:NEXIST. And thank you for going along the discussion with me. Yeah, the award I mentioned was that. Yes, we have an article about the INTACH, but not about the award itself, and to presume it is notable would be wrong since the notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Netnavigate website seems like a primary source so it cannot contribute to WP:GNG and Zaheer Ahmed who wrote the book is the son of the founder Hasanudin Ahmed, also making it WP:PRIMARY since it comes from the person who has connection to the villa itself. And finally the NY Times article. The proper link is this https://web.archive.org/web/20180615113003/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/travel/once-a-land-of-princes-and-palaces.html and sadly it is a passing mention of one sentence which you have said already. The article goes to discuss Famous Ice Cream and Vinita Pittie just a sentence later. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing a link to a complete accessible version of the NYT article. The full article is detailing the nearly-lost old Hyderabad, once grand and spacious, and lists various places including 250-year-old house where Vinita Pittie lives and so on. It comes across to me that no roundup of historic Hyderabad structures would be complete without mentioning the remarkably surviving, spacious, Aziz Bagh. If there were a regional or national historic register comparable to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or the City of Los Angeles' LAHCM, it would be on it. The full sentence about Aziz Bagh is: "I visited family friends at the neo-Classical Aziz Bagh, where seven generations have lived since 1899 in a three-acre compound so bucolic you’d never guess it existed deep within the thrum of the Old City." --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I added links now in the article to a couple photos of historic Aziz Bagh in the MIT library collection, and there is room to improve using the good 2017 article which you had found and has not yet been used in the article. Also, I would not be so quick to dismiss the 2009 book, or to dismiss it so completely. Neither you nor I have seen it, and I want to say that it obviously could be a great gold mine for covering the place. Also I note that both "civil servant" and author Hasanuddin Ahmed and poet Aziz Jang Vila are likely wikipedia-notable persons. --Doncram (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also another source is available from the first AFD about this topic, which closed Keep. From that: "Keep - as so often with non-US/Canada/UK/Australia subjects it's not too hard to find suitable references if you actually look - eg at Know AP (Know Andhra Pradesh) Aziz Bagh is described as one of Hyderabad's Architectural Splendours. http://www.knowap.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1039&Itemid=69 Opbeith (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)". This should have been consulted. I also expect there is more extensive off-line content about events and persons there, from the heyday which might have been in the 1940s or thereabouts. But it is notable for surviving intact and in well-preserved state.[reply]
That source covers a number of significant Andhra Pradesh places which received the INTACH award in various years, and it appears that it is awarded to just one place each year in either Hyderabad which is huge or in Andra Pradesh which is even huger. That suggests the INTACH award is quite important, contrary to skepticism or lack of knowledge about it in the nomination. --Doncram (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram I saw that already, and the problem is...that the article was written by the "administrator" with no names, so I am not sure could this be a reliable source here. Could imply it is a blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. While this is good amount on info, WP:GNG requires RELIABLE sources. I cannot judge reliability here. Also for the comment upwards, WP:GNG dismisses that book because it requires secondary sources (published by someone reliable and not affiliated with the subject). Primary sources can be used in the article, but does not show the notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you note I cannot judge reliability here about the book. I think the book should be obtained by someone. It may be a very good work, with plenty of citations itself, and with photographs that indisputably establish various facts, and so on. I don't have it either. Does any reader of this AFD have access via inter-library loan or whatever to the book, in order to use it to develop the article. Also it is not terribly expensive, $40 on Amazon i think it was. However, based on what's been uncovered here, and based on my experience with historic sites elsewhere (which one can like or not), I think this is pretty obviously a keep based on resources known (and consulted or not) plus likelihood of offline resources existing (which I think is pretty high) plus known fact of an award from a National Trust agency (though details of the award are not completely known). I will likely not comment a lot more. thanks, --Doncram (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram, the book that you describe above is published by CreateSpace; a self-publishing-medium with no minimal peer-review. The author seems to be entirely non-notable too and has no relevant academic expertise. Add WP:PRIMARY on top of that.
    And, the book fails RS by a mile or so. And, we don't need to see it to dismiss it. Also, creating a website in 1996 is not (by any means) highly unusual and I have no clue about how that contributes to notability of the subject.
    AFAIR, INTACH gives 3 annual awards; but I disagree about any of them being even a moderately good indicator of notability. Need to look on this locus; though.
    FWIW, I take no opinion on the merits of this AfD and most-importantly, will need to run a vernacular-source-search, over 'morrow. ∯WBGconverse 19:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for commenting and for your plan to look into it further, though I am less skeptical than you are given the same information so far. Again a book full of photos and perhaps diaries or other primary records or whatever can obviously be a reliable source used in developing the article. You can/do argue that because the source is non-independent of the subject, it can't go towards notability. However I think that depends more on the specifics of the source, and it needs to be seen, IMO. And we already have other indications of importance. And for a place this old there is likely offline coverage pre-internet, too, IMO.
    Suppose INTACH annually recognizes three historic sites. It's my understanding that INTACH covers Andra Pradesh, which had population of about 85 million then! (In 2014 Telangana was split out from AP, so AP's population is reduced to 49 million). For the United States, population 327 million, the U.S. (and Wikipedia) recognizes several thousand new designations of historic sites each year. So this would seem comparable to a U.S. National Historic Landmark, say, not merely a listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
    FYI, I understand this is the mansion/estate of the tax collector of Hyderabad State, the princely state, i.e. it was not the palace of Nizam of Hyderabad himself but rather of the top / most important civil servant. --Doncram (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this archived copy of INTACH source (which is in the article) shows Aziz Bagh was one of five INTACH awards that year, in 1997. And it maybe implies the region covered is Hyderabad, a city larger than City of Los Angeles, which recognizes I think dozens of new Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments each year, overlapping or in addition to the historic sites recognized by the U.S. within the city each year. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India. Hyderabad has about 150 designated heritage buildings, designated during 1996 to 2005, including the palace of the Nizam of Hyderabad (designated in 1996) and Aziz Bagh (designated in 1997). The list-article needs development, and I am currently fixing it up some, and there is some confusion (including that Aziz Bagh is clearly listed in 1997 but does not appear--or at least not under the same name--in a HUDA list in 2006 which seems like it should be the summary of all the separate yearly lists), but IMO every one of these heritage sites is pretty clearly Wikipedia notable. I may try to make a table and merge two overlapping sections in the list-article. These are places like the historic high court building of Andra Pradesh, etc., appearing to me to be equivalent to U.S. National Historic Landmarks. --Doncram (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram, reliability depends on the context of usage. We cannot brand a source into black-and-white and that is always implied to an extent; whenever we use the binary-classification.
    Suppose, I write a book about myself (and my family lineage) and publish a few copies through my next-door press;
    Is that reliable for supporting a claim that I was born in (say), 1976.
    Yeah; without attribution.
    Is that reliable for supporting the claim that my forefathers were the zamindars of the region?
    Maybe; but with attribution.
    Is that reliable for supporting the claim that my palatial abode has been among the finest examples of Indo-Saracenic architecture in Eastern India?
    Nope; plainly put. And, nothing needs to be seen.
    Is that a reliable source for proving the notability of my house/me/my lineage in absence of other sources?
    Never ever. And, nothing needs to be seen.
    We can use that as a source for relatively mundane claims iff the notability has been already established in the first place and by other sources.
    The INTACH Heritage Award (AP) is hardly a notable award to propel something to default notability. Any building of any size and more than 50 years of age can self-nominate for the award and the award targets the best conservation efforts.
    You have a weird sense of wiki-notability and having been subjected to sanctions in the past; you need to read WP:NOPAGE.
    I don't spot anything over regional dailies; post 2000 or so. ∯WBGconverse 15:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, User:Winged Blades of Godric, I don't particularly care, but IMO your comment verged over into domain of being a personal attack. You are invoking some past shite having nothing to do with this AFD as far as I can tell. And I did not create this Aziz Bagh article, I am instead contributing productively/positively to a discussion about an article created by someone else. But about articles I have created, I am batting approximately .999, seriously. I.e., out of tens of thousands of articles that I have created, there have been just a few random ones where I was mistaken about notability (perhaps for good reason) and where the article was deleted (and I probably agreed to it or proposed its deletion myself). --Doncram (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately. I generally prefer to preserve articles about heritage places. This is an unfortunate example of a building which has not been recognised by the government. I don't consider INTACH recognition to be notable as their recognition process is not selective and happens through local chapters. (Something like ASI list would be an example of what is truly notable). Other than government recognition, the biggest problem is the lack of coverage. I tried Hindi searches but results I am getting are not about the same building. The book about the building is self published which doesn't add much.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:DreamLinker, it turns out it has been so recognized, see below. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doncram: No, it is not a state protected building/site. Place of historical importance in a state are usually protected by the state government and the list for Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) is here list of state protected monuments in Andhra Pradesh (now Telengana) - Aziz Bagh is not part of this list. HUDA is an urban planning agency for Hyderabad. The adding of a structure to a "heritage list" by a local municipal agency is largely insignificant. The bigger problem is the lack of coverage about the building.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This mansion seems pretty clearly encyclopedic. On top of the citations currently in the article, It is discussed in depth on page 204 in, "A Guide to Architecture in Hyderabad, Deccan, India"[52], a manuscript written by MIT Research Librarian Omar Khalidi in 2009, who also cites, Hasanuddin Ahmad, Mahfil, (Hyderabad: Wila Academy, 1982), p. 153 (Hasanuddin Ahmad being the former owner). It was also declared a heritage building by the Hyderabad Municipal Administration and Urban Development in 2013.[53] Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to calling this a no-consensus... but let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks User:Smmurphy for your info; i added the 2013 official designation of Aziz Bagh as a heritage structure to the article. Some more from the MIT librarian-authored study should be added too. Note, so this is one of only a few officially designated heritage structures in Hyderabad city or metropolitan region, a huge area. I have edited a bit at Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, please see, and note there is more development to do there. So Aziz Bagh was in a sort of top 10 list, i.e. within the first two batches of 5 places designated by the INTACH, Hyderabad awards, when that was making a private start in effect making nominations for wider recognition. Aziz Bagh is now (2013) officially one of the 166 heritage buildings designated by the government. The heritage structures list-article needs to be better integrated in covering the INTACH chapter's nominations and the finally designated places, and in linking to articles. I created at least one new stub article, for St. John's Church, Secunderabad, and found my way to make more than a few links, e.g. Makkah Masjid, Hyderabad. Based on the ones I can see, it appears that Aziz Bagh is among great company, and I presume that all 166 will be accepted as Wikipedia-notable. It would be nice to have some help from editors in Hyderabad, with access to more sources to develop these more quickly, but this is a start. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just posted notices about this AFD at an inactive WikiProject Hyderabad and also at the India noticeboard. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think "officially designated heritage structure" counts for much, especially when the designation is by a local authority, and especially when the Indian land/property system is so corrupt. There is no standard for designation in India of which I am aware and it's bad enough that we seem to think US National Listings & UK Listed buildings are inherently notable without adding what will be hundreds of thousands of minor roadside Hindu temples etc if we pursue this line. We have too many stubs of this type, including of US stuff, without encouraging it further. If anything, we should be deleting WP:NHLE and WP:NRHP stub articles that rely almost entirely on their listing details, not adding more of the same from elsewhere. And, yes I am aware that this is one of 15 designated by the body in question at that particular time, not one of thousands. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Thank you for your understanding about India. Actually we don't have anything as "officially designated heritage structure". What we have is ASI list of national and state protected monuments (which would perhaps be the equivalent of National Registrar of Historic Buildings in US). Aziz Bagh is among neither of them, but rather in a list of heritage structures identified by a local municipal body. That counts for far less. That, coupled with the fact that there is hardly any coverage, is what makes me feel that this is not a particularly important building. There are many such 100+ year old havelis in India and I don't think every one of them would be notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it is perfectly relevant to this discussion, but I would disagree that very many stub NHLE/NRHP articles are about subjects which are not encyclopedic. Similarly, I would disagree that there shouldn't be articles on hundreds of residential buildings in India (I would guess well over a thousand such structures are encyclopedic). Khalidi's manuscript includes about 100 "residential structures" in Hyderabad; even if an article were created on each of these, that would result in a relatively small number of articles given the age, size, and cultural importance of Hyderabad (Category:Houses in Paris contains a similar number of residential structures in that much smaller and younger city). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with articles on historic houses, but there should be some detailed independent coverage (otherwise I prefer merging them to a list). I don't think however that every house older than 100 years would be notable. About Aziz Bagh, Khalidi's manuscript is not a great source, as it relies on primary sources without critical analysis/verification. I do agree about the Western bias (There are many articles about historic places in London), but I think in this case the building itself is not particularly notable or has not been properly researched. On a historical note, I thought Paris (established ~ 1200s) is actually older than Hyderabad (established during the later Mughal period ~ 1550s)?--DreamLinker (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The INTACH award clearly qualifies it per WP:GEOFEAT. There aren't that many given out every year. Also note that only 151 buildings had been granted cultural heritage status by Hyderabad by 2013. In an historic city of nearly 7 million people that isn't very many at all. Lacking an official national built cultural heritage listing system for India, we have to rely on this sort of thing to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Necrothesp:, I think the biggest problem is the lack of quality independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Just to clarify, "Lacking an official national built cultural heritage listing system for India" is not correct. We do have an official list of protected sites by state/national. The INTACH (which is a private NGO) award is given out by each local chapter (and there are many such chapters all over India). While I admire the work of INTACH (in my city, they do heritage walks, book exhibitions etc.), I don't think the local awards are significant, particularly given that the selection criteria is not transparent. About "buildings had been granted cultural heritage status by Hyderabad", this isn't exactly correct either. The HUDA (a local municipal agency) added these to a "heritage list", which is not the same as being granted heritage status by the state government.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. That's why I said "Hyderabad" and not "Telangana"! I maintain that this is enough for notability. I would be very surprised if such a house in the UK, for instance, would not be a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a large bungalow with some embellishments. The only thing it would be listed in would be the local A-Z. Cesdeva (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A Palladian villa? I can only conclude that you don't know a lot about heritage listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a few tiny ionic columns and rather unimpressive facade make that bungalow a palladian villa, then I guess you are right. Cesdeva (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apolgies for the wrong link. For the avoidance of doubt, these are sources I beleive contain signficant coverage i.e. "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material": [56], [57], [58]. The first is an entire article, and the other two both contain paragraphs that address the subject directly and detail why the building is notable. These are both more than a trivial mention, which is exemplified by the NYT source which while mentioning some details, does so in passing in the context of a number of places the author visited that week.--Pontificalibus 11:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Firefox. This is a complicated close. By the numbers, there are four !votes for "Delete"; four !votes for "Merge", two !votes for "Keep or merge", and six !votes for "Keep". However, four of the six of those arguing to keep the article are either IP's with relatively low edit counts, or in one case a brand new user account whose only participation in the encyclopedia is in this discussion. The opinions of such participants, while considered, may be discounted due to the likelihood that they will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of material (and to a lesser degree due to the difficulty in controlling sockpuppet voting, although there is no allegation of that in this discussion). Even among seasoned editors, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of the material altogether, but there is also a clear consensus that it should not exist as a freestanding article. It will therefore be merged into the appropriate section of the Firefox article, and collapsed so as to not take up disproportionate real estate when that article loads. bd2412 T 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

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

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

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


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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mher Khachatryan (artist)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is poor, and nothing more found in a search. Most RS are about a single "artprize" exhibition. There's no breadth of sourcing here nor in-depth items that would allow me to easily extract the notability of the artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author) I admit that the article was previously deleted due to lack of media coverage. However, the artist and his works have presently been covered in several places by the worldwide media such as Metro (British newspaper), Booth newspapers, VZZM, Agos (Armenian newspaper), Golos armeni (Russian newspaper). It definitely meets WP:GNG.-VishalSuryavanshi89 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sourcing is poor, and the public vote at ArtPrize is not enough to cover notability in and of itself. Also, I recognize at least one vanity gallery in the list of exhibitions. [59][60][61]. --Theredproject (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted on Metro, I was unaware of that. I'm not particularly familiar with Golos Armenii, but they clearly have a public editorial staff [64] and don't appear to have any obvious editorial problems, which means that for uncontroversial subjects like artist bios they should be considered reliable. It also seems like at least one Armenian-language source that has been provided [65] has some coverage and may be reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Golos Armenii is also not an RS (would never merit a WP article). This is a 3rd nomination for an artist with WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:PROMO issues. We should have at least a major RS from a significant newspaper, tv network, independent book, chapter in an independent book etc. All we have are scraps from un-notable websites or free newspapers in the London Underground. He needs a WP article to get notability (and it relentless in pursuit of it). It should be the other way around? Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I already voted above, but I was able to find this additional Russian-language piece [66], which also appears to be an RS, although it also cites the Metro UK piece. I'm unable to search effectively in Armenian, but I would be shocked if there wasn't additional RS coverage in the language, given the coverage in Russian-language Armenian media. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember, this subject has been largely based in the U.S. since circa 2000. There is virtually no coverage in any U.S. media. I found a Grand River Rapids radio station article discussing his work [67]. Metro is a junk publication in the U.K. and not suitable for WP (the Daily Mail would be way above it, and that is saying something). For an artist who spends a lot of his time in the U.S., he is a ghost. Britishfinance (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as Britishfinance notes, there's definitely whiffs of UPE here, and SPAs seem to love this AfD. Much of the coverage appears to be incidental on the Metro coverage and per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Metro, it's unreliable. SITH (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closers. Read this AfD carefully. 3rd time this article re-appeared on WP (deleted twice before). Issues of WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:PROMO. All "keeps" bar one are IP-editors/author. Rosguill has provided some references, but any reading of them shows that they are not clear RS. There is no RS from a significant newspaper, tv network, independent book, or chapter in an independent book on this subject. Nothing; nor has there ever been in past AfDs. Subject needs WP to get notability – it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_February_3&oldid=881650346"