Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 AM Principle: Discover the Science of Adventure

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

Hasn't received substantial coverage or reviews, only book by a barely notable author. JesseRafe (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has potential for a merge, so Selective Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist); a functional WP:ATD that would improve the suggested merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No storng feelings eitherway here except that the book has been mentioned in some decent quality tier 2 (maybe tier 4 in one case) sources Fortune, Observer, Times of Israel, New York Post, and Vogue. Certainly no New York Times or Washington Post type references, but these are still popular widely-read sources. Would a casual reader expect to see an article on the book in WP having read about it in these sources. Probably yes in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too have no strong feelings here, but in the interest of trying to obtain consensus, I'll agree to the merge mentioned above. The book does not achieve notability under WP:BK but there is an argument that it meets WP:GNG. Still, in the absence of sourcing evaluating the book as a book, the author's page is the best place for it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jon Levy (behaviorist) per Xymmax suggestion. Beefs up Levy's article (e.g. one good WP article is better than two minor ones). Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Penn

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

I previously Proded the article with the objection of that it fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG last week but it was removed by User:Authenticboy15. The article only cites minor sources, including YouTube. In any event he doesn't meet notability standards. Further note the Prod remover objected with the comment. "I’m a well established media coverage who takes part in many editing platforms for athletes and this athlete’s profile is accurate and legit. Matches information laid out just like many other great athletes detail on the Wikipedia platform. Doesn’t make sense to why it has been placed with a PROD. I removed the PROD because I strongly object. I don’t know the kid but I have tried to cover a story about him and did not get the chance to but I do continue to follow his..." They didn't reference any wiki guidelines UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Authenticboy15 has commented on the talk page of this AfD.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems that the pinnacle of his college football career was to play at Iowa Wesleyan University, a NCAA Division III school. There's of course nothing wrong with that and a division III player could achieve notability, but I see no indication of that to be true. I'm finding no references in independent third party reliable sources, much less the significant coverage we need for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The professional career seems to be with teams in the Indoor Football League, which does not indicate notability achievement as well. If such sources were introduced, I'd be happy to change my position and we could include them in the article--but my research has led me here in this case. I can only see that the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORTS, and any other notability guideline I can find. Perhaps an enthusiastic editor will try another wiki more suitable, such as an online sports almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author). Subject information meets guidelines listed in Wiki guidelines references. Information is blueprinted in simplicit manner. Subject discussed on page is authentic individual, with reliable and authentic sources. Rather than nominate for deletion, why would you as editors not do research on the subject and provide more sources, if you don’t agree that the current sources are “good enough”? Indoor football leagues, as well as arena football leagues are just as notable as other professional leagues of football. Each notable athlete is not always recognized through media and articles, which should not held against them when articles are portrayed in promoting those type of athletes and their story/journey, particularly small schools. This particular issues, has me worried about my other articles I am working on as well. Who have been worked out by NFL teams but I guess that is not considered as high of a standard as playing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authenticboy15 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Question what "other articles" ? The only logs in your history are for Antonio Penn, this discussion, and the talk page for this discussion. In any event, athletes not being recognized through media and articles are precisely reasons not to include articles about them because such a case would not meet notability standards, especially for biographies of living persons. I like your enthusiasm!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This player does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There have yet to be any sources provided that indicate notability beyond his achievements at a USCAA school and in semi-professional leagues. Typically, players that are the subject of notable coverage have achieved significant honors in Division I FBS and/or have played in the NFL. —Ostealthy (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also most of the citations that even suggest that are personal sites.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the "Proposed Deletion" was previously rejected then this is a controversial case. The best way of moving forward with this article should be discussed on the talk page. Eucraic (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An objection to WP:PROD does not make an article immune to WP:AFD discussions. Here is precisely the place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sure "no" will suffice. SITH (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Eucraic: As this is only your 7th edit on WP, you may not be familiar with WP:AFD for articles suspected of failing WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet any of the WP:ATHLETE criteria, none of the sources are simultaneously independent, reliable and in-depth. SITH (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:ATHLETE. The nasty WP:COI aroma does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Written by a single purpose editor Authenticboy15. Britishfinance (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Typical sports reporting fails to meet the GNG and fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Sandals1 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAILS Library Network

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

Fails WP:ORG. Prod was removed by the article creator with the explanation that "library systems are generally considered notable", which is absolutely false. Come up with a reliable non-local source that discusses this quasi-governmental agency in detail and I'll happily withdraw this. Stating there is something inherently notable about a library system is both false and lazy. I see nothing either here or WP:BEFORE that shows notability and WP:OTHERCRAP is just that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous examples of library systems being kept as inherently notable (I gave Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsden County Public Library System as examples in my edit summary). The most prudent example might actually be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North of Boston Library Exchange, which is a much more poorly sourced article on an almost identical library network that was kept at AfD. @John from Idegon, if you feel these sorts of articles should not be kept, please also add the following to your nomination so that we don't have to litigate them one at a time:

(I'm not trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing these, just trying to save time by consolidating). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a referendum on the notability of libraries in general, but rather on whether this library is notable. They are not and this not the place to discuss that. I'd say if you want to establish some sort of consensus on the general notability of libraries, WP:VPP would be the place. So no, I won't be doing that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an article in Computers in Libraries, listed here, more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not like how this page is listed for AfD less than 3 hours after it's creation, that's not assuming good faith, and gets a little close to WP:BITING (in fact, this exact scenario is nicely outlined there). I would like to try and help this article before I make my final decision, for now though this page is strikingly similar to dozens of other library consortium pages, most of which can be found at the Category:Library consortia page. I would like to note that despite what the nominator claims, library systems are historically voted as "keep" at AfD a large amount of the time. This is not a referendum on this page as it currently stands, but is it say there are countless examples in the talk page of WP:Libraries and in other places to show that library systems are generally notable. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, all Pokemon were considered notable too. If you want an WP:SNG, propose one. We have draft space to develop articles. No article should ever come to mainspace that does not meet WP:GNG. If I had found sufficient sourcing, I would have draftifyed it. I didn't. Take your aspersions and shove them up your ass. John from Idegon (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely appalled at that last statement. Nothing I wrote could have possibly prompted such a horrifying response. See WP:CIVIL SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Typical! Its all about bottoms with you wikieditors." (with apologies to Fawlty Towers) Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime Coolabahapple}. The most graphic interaction that has been stimulated by a WP library article? Lower tone guys. There is a serious point at the core of this, hence why there are no votes yet (and this will need re-listing), about WP policy re these networks that may be needed. The actions of liabaries don't make front page news (per normal GNG), but doesn't mean that the significance of the networks should not be recorded. The amount of existing articles on equivalent networks might imply that the WP community does have a leaning in this direction (same example as per WP:PORNBIO, which makes up for lack of GNG). Pinging DGG and PamD for expertise. Britishfinance (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have always counted county (and similar) library systems as notable-- I cannot immediately think of any exception; we have however usually not counted those of individual towns, though there has sometimes been disagreement. The question, as usual here, depends on what we consider a substantial reference and what a mere notice. We are usually quite tolerant of that for important community institutions. The terms in the GNG are general, and need to be interpeted in individual cases, and how they interpret them is up to the community. And even more fundamentally, the GNG, of course, is a guideline, and not only do all guidelines intrinsically permit exceptions, but this particular one makes a point of saying so at the top. The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and by includingthe systems but not the individual libraries we are meeting that policy. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 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) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re-visiting this after a while away. I think we really need to get around to making a WP:NLIBRARY once and for all, because this is one of dozens of examples of library systems getting called to AfD, and so far I can't think of any that have failed. I agree with with DGG wrote on the matter and list it as the reason for my vote. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:39, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Ponit

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

Opting for AFD as I can only machine-translate Hindi sources, however, both such searches and ones in English yield little in the way of significant coverage that suggests passage of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little I could find on the subject or his "Orange Hindu Religious Organization". Probably why the article has no references. Britishfinance (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Briefly mentioned in The Difficult Flowering of Surinam: Ethnicity and Politics in a Plural Society [1], which also gives the Dutch name of the organization as well as information about its transition to a minor political party with a different name, about which more sources, though minor, can be found [2]. Supposedly it is covered in Mitrasing's The Border-conflict Between Surinam and Guiana, which I cannot access. Also, there is brief discussion of Ponit in Tien jaar Suriname, van afhankelijkheid tot gelijkgerechtigheid [3]. I don't think there's enough to merit a standalone article on this subject, but the field remains open for someone to create a properly-sourced article (or, more likely, a section in some other article) on the party/movement. Bakazaka (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and commentary by Bakazaka, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penti

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

I rather doubt that the awards listed here are reliable for showing notability DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination but submit it for the year's vanity awards. Or don't we have those yet? -The Gnome (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Viktor Bout. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samar Airlines

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

No sources, no real substance I'm not sure if the airline is even notable. When I searched for info it all seemed to be sourced from here which is somewhat comical, seeing how the information here is unsourced. Doradafan (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source suggests that this airline might warrant a mention at Viktor Bout, with a redirect of this title, but I can't find enough for independent notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article completely lacks sources, which is odd, given the airline has been around since 2004.TH1980 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It really annoys me when people ignore what has gone on before in discussions. I showed by linking to a source what sort of "airline" this was, so can't we discuss this on that basis, rather than make comments that show that we haven't taken any notice of the previous discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added sources and it did exist with a colourful history. It does appear on some aviation searches of the country as one of their local airlines but was never a leading carrier. Given it's history, I think it is interesting enough to keep, however could also make the case for a Redirect to Viktor Bout article (I have added a line in his article to Samar). Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viktor Bout. The entity is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Covering it in broader context at the Viktor Bout article is a better service to our readers in any event. Bakazaka (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatton Student Center

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

Apparently non-notable student centre, not one independent reliable source in our page. It gets some hits – but no significant coverage – on Gnews because various routine things happen there; no meaningful hits on Gbooks. According to our article, it has a "dining hall for students to purchase meals"; is this really of encyclopaedic interest or importance? (of course, if it had a dining-hall where students could purchase rolled steel products in bulk, that would be of some interest). This is the sort of mundane trivia that belongs on the school website. Redirect to University of Kentucky has been tried and reverted, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a $200 million dollar building is not a mundane school annexe and is of architectural interest and will most probably be the subject of preservation in the future Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i see at List of University of Kentucky buildings that there are quite a few buildings that dont have a wikiarticle although "of architectural interest and will most probably be the subject of preservation in the future" (note: i am not saying that these buildings arent wikinotable, just that the argument given above is not relevant:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least leaning that way. To "delete" outright would not be right. At worst the topic could be redirected to its row in the list of UK buildings. However, while the article could be edited down, there is still more valid material in the article than can easily be merged. --Doncram (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A USD 200 million dollar 330,000 square foot building is not insignificant. Britishfinance (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : We already have two suggestions to Keep the article that are based on the cost of the building. However, cost of constructing something is not a criterion for having an article on that something in Wikipedia! Suggestions based on policy would be far more productive. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the keep votes only have the building's price tag as a reason to keep it, which doesn't satisfy notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I !voted "keep" above. Again an outright "delete" would be inappropriate as a link to the this buildings entry in List of University of Kentucky buildings would be preferable, as a matter of wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added some material aobut the history of the building; they've preserved part of the 1938 interior.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 27 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) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mumble rap

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

It's a term more so than an actual genre, a term more often than not used to slander the performer by critics. It is also impossible to define and highly subjective. Merge genre-specific information into the articles cloud rap, emo rap, trap music (hip hop) & lo-fi music which are the actual genres. Either Redirect mumble rap to hip-hop and merge relevant information into that article or rewrite this article to be about the term and the usage of it rather than the "genre" that is undefinable. Doradafan (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a fan of the seemingly endless sub-categorisation of rap however a basic google search throws up several articles in RS on this subject: [4], [5], [6]. Article is properly structured and referenced. Sadly, "mumble rap" is here. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well structured and references which is meets WP:NMUSIC, but consider a slight twink would help. Sheldybett (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article certainly passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, I have some sympathy for the nominator as this article is in need of trimming and restructuring. In the end however mumble rap is one of the more covered sub-genres of rap music currently so deletion or merge would be the wrong course of action. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Being bold so I deleted the list of "mumble rappers" from the article. Who's supposed to be a judge of who is a mumble rapper? Is everyone a mumble rapper as long as one independent source says so? If that's the case we might as well categorize Metallica as pop or Frank Sinatra as indie-pop. It's such a loosely defined term, and pretty much no artist would ever define themselves as a mumble rapper. Doradafan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its based on reliable source coverage, like every other list of artists on Wikipedia, and people can always discuss on the talk page if they'd like them removed and reach a consensus. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mumble rap is a vague term of disparagement used to describe people varying from Young Thug to 6ix9ine. Lifestyle and Kooda for example are two different songs easily described as mumble rap that are clearly quite different genres. However, even though "mumble rap" is debateably an actual genre, it is an extremely notable term used significantly to describe songs and rappers. For that reason it should be kept with significant changes. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is notable and is the main term known for the musical movement that started in the 2010s. -- Flooded w/them 100s 08:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per reliable sources in Britishfinance's comment. Whether any particular artist or musical work should be classified under the genre is up for debate, but that consideration makes no difference to the notability of the mumble rap genre. — Newslinger talk 14:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm unconvinced by your reasons for wanting deletion. Though I do agree the article should be written a bit better.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Clinics

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

No evidence of any notability. Several of the sources are clearly the same regurgitated press release and others make no mention of the subject. Strong suggestion of COI or paid editing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator about article sources, also WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Velella and Coolabahapple. Sheldybett (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. After cleaning away all the promotional material very little would remain. -The Gnome (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per promotion content. No prejudice against recreation --DannyS712 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Next (programming block)

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

Generation Next was an umbrella term for a series of special reports on the BBC website and TV that lasted one week in 2006. Most media companies engage in this sort of grouped content series, and BBC runs several each year. This doesn't independently meet notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT as there are no secondary sources in the article (nor readily available) after over 12 years. It has no incoming links from any articles, either. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one-week series of BBC programs where all the references are primary (i.e. the BBC). Can't find any non-primary RS on google that this week of programming was in any way notable (probably why all the referencing in this article is from the BBC). Why would anyone want to read this article? Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a depository of random listings, especially if they are not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tom Ölander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep While the article is still a stub and fairly poor quality, i think you have provided enough to keep the article from being deleted. I also managed to find a mention of him in the book Science Fiction Rebels here [7]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of all sources will be in Finnish, some in Swedish, but there are some available in English as well. w:fi:Toni Jerrman wrote an essay called "It All Started with Tom Ölander" in the souvenir book for the 75th World Science Fiction Convention, which I don't have access to now but will have again in a couple of weeks. (The reference to Mike Ashley's work that I've added is more of a passing mention.) In other languages than English – in addition to what Leena Peltonen wrote in in Aikakone, and Ahrvid Engholm's obituary in Dagens Nyheter, both added as sources, Juhani Hinkkanen wrote another longer text about Ölander in Aikakone back when he died, and just for contextualisation I think this text from the Turku Science Fiction Society is worth reading. /Julle (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Also, Finland is bilingual. The country has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish.) /Julle (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Edelstein

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

This page is about a moderately high level corporate executive, but I think fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG notability guidelines, and may violate WP:NOTRESUME. From the first time I encountered this page, it struck me as more of an online "resume" (especially if you read early versions soon after creation) and has been tagged for improvement for several months. Many of the sources are inaccessible, and those that can be viewed are not very substantive - largely a mix of trade publications, press release reprints, corporate profiles, and other publicity material. Other sources are so old as to not be verifiable. Overall, it does not seem this subject has made an encyclopedic level of impact on their field. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 18:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only major source I can find (outside of his own websites and online directories) is to Global Custodian [8], which is a trade newsletter (and not a leading one) in custody. There is no mention to him that I could find in any main newspaper (e.g. Financial Times, WSJ, New York Times etc.), which for a financial-person is a red-flag. I could take any "full partner" of Warburg Pincus and their name would appear in several of these papers (due to the scale of their deals). Article is very promotional and unlikely to be written by an unconnected edotir. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 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 merge to Manga Time Kirara. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirara Fantasia

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

insufficient references for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - sources at: [9], [10] were all I found on WP:BEFORE. Not suitible enough for GNG. iOS games are also rarely notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Manga Time Kirara would seem the best way of preserving content. Agreed that this article is not independently notable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:27, 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 17:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced contents to Manga Time Kirara, which could use some additional prose, frankly. No good reason to have a standalone article for this minimally noteworthy game. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Adkins

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

Biography of a person whose claim of notability (receiving the Order of Canada) is referenced only to an 18-word blurbette on the Order of Canada's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage. While the Order of Canada is a valid notability claim if the person can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to have any media coverage just because it verifies in the Order of Canada's own self-published database -- for one thing, "noted for his work in amateur theater" isn't very specific, and fails to say anything about what his work in amateur theater was: actor? playwright? stage manager? director? lighting designer? janitor? Even with a CM after his name, we still have to be able to say (and reference) quite a bit more about him than just "he existed" before an article is actually warranted. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canadian newspapers have coverage of him over many years. He died in 1982, and his obituary states that he had been stage manager of the Ottawa Little Theatre for more than 50 years (it gives his age, place of birth, when he arrived in Canada, the public service work he did, his wife and children, etc).[11] The first coverage is in a 1935 article with 7 paras about him and his work (as overseer and electrician), 'Back Stage Staff Work Hard For Drama's Success' (The Ottawa Journal [12], then 1942 ("Look For Man Behind Scenes When Play Is Great Success', The Ottawa Citizen (lighting, set designs, set changes) [13], 1945, 46, 47, 48 etc (shorter - a sentence in each article about scenery and stage sets, etc). 1949 - an article about a Teenage Community Corn Festival (which actually seems to have been a drama festival!) - Bill Adkins was directing six other stage managers; article says he has extensive stage managing experience with army shows, the Orpheus Society and the Little Theater [14]. 1951 - several articles, a para in one [15], two paras in an article about a show going to London to represent Eastern Ontario in the Dominion Drama Festival [16]. 1956 - 2 paras [17], 1958 - 1 para [18], and other shorter mentions of his work as stage manager and/or set designer. (Some shorter mentions as "William Adkins" eg in 1960 [19]). 1960, an article in the Ottawa Citizen on 15 October, 'Bill Adkins At L. Theater For 39 Years' [20], and another in the Ottawa Journal on 3 December, 'Bill Adkins Honored' (with a Canadian Drama award "in recognition of outstanding contributions to Canadian theater") [21] (seems to have actually been awarded in March 1961 [22]). (Also reported in the Ottawa Citizen [23] and The Gazette, Montreal [24] 1963 - 'Faces of Ottawa - William Adkins' [25] - about 16 paras, including where he was born, one of 5 brothers, service in WWI, theatre work in WWII, etc). 1967 - a para in an article about 'Ottawa Little Theater' [26]. 1970 - the Little Theater burned down - 3 sentences about Bill Adkins in one piece [27], 1 sentence and 3 paras of quotes from him in another [28]. 1971 - a photo of Adkins and one of the directors at the site of the new Little Theater [29]. 1972 - a sentence in an article on the opening of the new theater [30]. More 1 sentence mentions in reviews of plays in the early-mid 1970s. Also, in 1973, he was among the first people appointed as Members of the Order of Canada [31] (article about the development of the Canadian honors system, with the rank of Member intended to honor "Canadians who have made outstanding contributions to their professions, local organizations and communities"). Another article about nominations says he was "active in the Dominion Drama Festival" [32]. He was described as a "legendary character" in a 2012 article about theater in Ottawa [33]. Certainly enough to compose an article with, if he is considered notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will say Keep based on the coverage I found above, and expand the article based on the information in those sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Rebecca Green's excellent work. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thundermug (band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wyn Anderson

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

Biography of a person whose only stated claim of notability is being associated with other people. Notability is not inherited, however, so simply managing a notable rock band is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any reliable source coverage about him -- but the references here aren't getting him over the bar, as they include one (deadlinked) profile of the band, one still-live profile of the band on an unreliable site, and one dead piece of content about a reggae musician on a Wordpress blog. None of this counts for anything at all toward making Wyn Anderson notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I can't find anything better anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I have a feeling that Anderson also had something to do with other bands besides rock group, Thundermug and reggae artist Gregory Isaacs (some real diversity there). He may have done other work with Axe Records. If it doesn't go that way to save, could we possibly preserve the history and have it re-directed to Thundermug?
Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had done other work besides Thundermug and Gregory Isaacs (an unverified claim at present), the notability test would still hinge on how well you could reference him to reliable source coverage about him, not just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about the artists he'd worked with or unreliable sources of any stripe. I've already looked for real media coverage that might bolster his notability, and I can't find any. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:30, 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 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thundermug (band) There's a lack of significant independent coverage about him and no indication of notability meriting a separate article, plus notability can't be inherited. Seems to have been integral to Thundermug's success and is already mentioned in that article, so a redirect seems best to me. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heart to Heart International

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

This humanitarian relief agency doesn't seem to get much coverage outside of the local Kansas outlets, and all that I found was brief notes on some mission or other, or the mention of someone being on the board. There's a history of promotional editing here, and some of that is still in the article. What I don't see anywhere is in-depth discussion of the organization in secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple click on the "news" link above reveals a large number of significant independent coverage, enough to pass WP:GNG. Further, these references also pass WP:ORGDEPTH. I'll grant that the article needs edited and the sources added, but I don't find the article to violate any policy so it should remain until an enthusiastic editor makes those changes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly sources out there of state, regional, and international, #1, #2, #3, #4 (minimum), and #5.
Keep - There seems to be enough news coverage of the organisation, as mentioned by the previous anonymous editor, to meet WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 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 speedy close. Deleted because of pervasive copyright violations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Population health management concept

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

This is not really an encyclopedia article, rather it looks to be a random assortment of paragraphs containing the phrase "population health management." Contested proposed deletion. ... discospinster _talk 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's a copyvio and if we removed that, it would be one sentence and wouldn't make any sense. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Speedy or not the article subject is (poorly) covered in Health management system. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Singh

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Hasn't played in a fully professional league. This remains valid. The article does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been a WP:G4. Trillfendi (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trillfendi, this is not applicable for G4, since PROD deletions can always be reverted by WP:REFUND. While this wasn't refunded, it technically acts as one as a recreation over a PROD deletion. Only AFD deletions are tied to G4. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. He obviously doesn’t have significant coverage from reliable sources. Nor does he meet NSPORT. Trillfendi (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - Several references have been added. Harry plays as a full time professional in Maltese premier league. The most credible reference comes from the Maltese FA Mahaprabhu 108 18:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

David Dobrik

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

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

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

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

Delete I’m honestly surprised this page managed to get created. The draft was trash (I would know I had to correct it). While he’s a popular YouTuber and controversial DACA recipient, there are absolutely 0 reliable sources about him. Guy breaks up with girl isn’t news. Someone also removed some factual BLP information. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have the BBC [34], Wired Magazine [35], The Verge [36], Sky News [37], the Evening Standard [38] etc. So I question your "zero reliable sources". There is also The Post [39] (but you can question that as a student newspaper) or the non-RS Daily Mail [40]. I didn't dig through the 11 hits on Google Scholar, but the person does look notable as a "famous Youtube personality" or whatever. Certainly it was not clear cut enough to delete this as a G4, so I declined the speedy. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is not an article about Dobrik, but this Forbes article clearly assumes most people reading stories about YouTube know Dobrik, which does indicate notability to me. I'll just say keep at this point. —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, as per Kusma. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kusma and the fact that he gets some hits in google scholar [41]. I think Wiki is certainly outdated in the way it treats internet celebrities; not our fault but i don't think old media sources know how to accurately cover a mainly young phenomenon. Because under any definition this guy's dedicated audience is bigger then 90% of entertainers on this site. If any other entertainer had ten million dedicated followers they'd have tons of sources. It's just the media seems to have a weak spot covering internet celebrities. GuzzyG (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was merge & redirect to Turning Point USA. IT can always be spun back out again should it achieve lasting coverage. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point UK

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

It may have got a degree of publicity dues to its launch, and nature. But at this time it is far to early to say if it will have any lasting notability or impact. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does notability have to be lasting? Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, yes per WP:LASTING. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder and MJL: Actually WP:LASTING is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline. This topic is about an organization, not an event. As such, WP:LASTING is not applicable to the topic. For more information about the notability of organizations, see WP:ORG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I am just surprised this exists. Having said that, my own personal dislike for TPUSA will probably bias me here. Therefore, I will recuse myself from this vote (or !vote-- I forget which). ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one respect this is the point of my AFD, this has gotten this amount of publicity because of (and directly related to) its links to its US parent. There is (at this time) no evidence of truly independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I can see that, but I'd also totally delete the Charlie Kirk article if given ~~the chance~~ a likeminded consensus for the same reason (at least at this moment in time). I'd probably would want to redirect it to TPUSA as well since that is the only thing he's known for, so it's best for me to stay away from this group of subjects because I'd throw the legitimacy of the process into doubt. Personal bias and all that. I'd rather be safe than sorry. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not motivated by dislike, there are plenty of things I dislike more then this lot (is there more then one?), that have articles I would never delete. The issue is I do not see this having any impact or (after a few months) being little more then three students in the union bar moaning about Brexit. This is why I mentioned lasting impact. This could be merged with the parent article with zero loss of information (as we have none). But outside of this Kirk Character nothing and no one surrounding this is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate, we know more about the US head then the UK head. Are there any interviews with Mr George Farmer, pictures? Was he at the launch (if not why not?), does anyone in fact give a flying circus about him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That guidance is about events, not organizations.Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant WP:SUSTAINED.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to its parent organisation. It's got a burst of coverage for its launch that makes it a likely search term and gives us some sources so its worth mentioning but there is nowhere near enough (yet) to sustain an independent article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The test is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We now have the Times, the BBC, The Telegraph, the Spectator, New Statesman, the Guardian, the Indy, not to mention the Sun. So much as I dislike the organisation, it's clearly notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - non-notable spin-off attempt organization that fails WP:GNG with a recentist coverage. Organization hasn't gained any coverage for their major activities and events in the UK. At present time, unworthy of an article that would possibly be a PR magnet. Organization will probably have no lasting notability or impact. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Futurism is not part of the consideration of notability. The organisation has a lot of coverage of its existence, even if it does nothing.Rathfelder (talk) 13:18, 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. Sourcing for WP:N (or indeed, WP:V) was found wanting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudramurti Ahir

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

Single sentence article with no reference. The subject is not notable, fails WP:GNG. Google search only results in mirror sites of Wikipedia and a very few other sites. Most of them are unreliable, and the others don't have enough content establish notability. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - This figure was a king of the Abhira Kingdom sometime between 250 and 415 AD. I'm not sure if tribal kings are automatically assumed to be encyclopedic but my inclination is that they are. However, I'm having trouble finding good information. Here is mention in one book[42]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see snippet view of that book, Smmurphy, but the title isn't promising - it is about a myth. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only see a snippet as well - and I agree that it is a terrible reference. The source I gave is, I think, using the name Rudramurty as the name of a god identified with Shiva (see also: [43]).
The underlying issue stays the same. If there is enough information to identify this figure - that is if reliable sources describe the figure, however briefly, and if he was a king of some stature, then I think he is could be encyclopedic. In the K.S. Singh source, Rudramurti is mentioned alongside Ishwarsen (also Ishwar Sen) and Shivdatta (whose page is here: Śūdraka). Looking for these figures, I find one or two more sources, but I'm not sure if those are less dubious than Singh. In those sources, Rudramurti doesn't seem to be mentioned. So what we have is a single source possibly copied a few times. I won't !vote delete at this point, as I'm happy to be swayed back. But looking closely, there really doesn't seem to be anything here.
I can think of various reasons this could have been fabricated and various ways in which it could have been fabricated. In particular, the ur-source for Rudramurti is probably the same as the sources for Śūdraka, stories and myths of uncertain accuracy. So I looked for more about Śūdraka to see what I could find. One source discussing Śūdraka/Shivdata also mentions a general Rudrabhuti in the service of Saka Rudrasimha (see Rudrasimha I). So Rudramurti could be a misspelling of Rurabhuti. In general, our knowledge of the Abhira kings seems to derive from a small number of inscriptions (for instance [44], describing inscription 1137 here [45] - Rudrabhuti is mentioned in inscription 963 in that same booklet). Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOLDIER Generals are notable. reliable source from Anthropological Survey of India mentions him as the army chief and a king. These 2 books are strong enough for me to keep this stub.^[1]^[2]--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Singh, Kumar Suresh (1998). "Rudramurti+Ahir" People of India. Anthropological Survey of India. ISBN 9788171547661. Retrieved 5 February 2019. {{cite book}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help)
^ Singh, K. S. (1998). Rajasthan. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 9788171547661. Retrieved 5 February 2019.

Yeah, the problem is that the "states" series of The People of India is, unlike the "national" series, not considered to be reliable. They mostly plagiarise the Raj era stuff, which itself is unreliable for a bunch of reasons. Also, while NSOLDIER does suggest that generals etc are inherently notable, that is based on It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ... It is a fair presumption for the modern era but if we actually cannot find much in the way of sourcing for someone who lived ca. 1600 years ago, and all we can find is passing mentions in dubious sources, then it is an equally fair presumption that we are not now going to do so. I'm really undecided about this. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comments Sitush. Yes, this was not an easy choice, but I would prefer to take sides with the Anthropological Survey of India and trust their expertise. IMHO, if there are ambiguity at an AfD it is better to err on the safer side i.e. to keep. We have to decide on what already exists and if that is promising. This source is promising enough for me. hence I decided to keep. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that your two citations above are from the same source? They're both Volume 38, Part 1 of the "Rajasthan" part of the states series. And, as I said, AnSI is not reliable in that series. There was a reason why Cambridge University Press were unwilling to pursue their collaboration after the initial "national" series publications. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a search of JSTOR, eg@ this, but can find no mention of him, including under alternate spellings such as Aheer and Rudramurthy. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sitush and nom.∯WBG^converse 12:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked high and low but can find nothing that would get this person over the GNG bar, nor even reliably confirm his military status. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Shankar Singh

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

Does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am the creator of the original article. The person in question is quoted in several Indian and and international newspapers and magazines. One of India's largest magazines, The Caravan recently did a feature on him. ^[1] He has also been prominently featured in stories in Time Magazine ^[2] and quoted by Nikkei Asian Review ^[3]. His book on Indian Elections is also being published by Penguin.^[4] IndianPolitics-Bihar (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with IndianPolitics-Bihar, the article clearly meets WP:GNG and he is a creator of the article, as well as sigifanct coverage on several Indian and International newspapers. Sheldybett (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, "quoted by" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at all — people get over our notability tests by being the subject of coverage, not by giving soundbite to the media in articles about other subjects, so the Time and Nikkei Asian Review sources listed above are not helping. Secondly, people don't get over our notability tests by being the author of their own sources, either — The Caravan doesn't help to establish his notability, because it represents a source in which he's writing about himself in the first person, not a source in which other people are writing about him in the third person. Thirdly, people are not handed an automatic free pass over our notability criteria for writers just because the book's existence metaverifies itself on the non-independent primary source website of its publisher — the notability test for a writer is independent coverage about his writing, such as newspapers or magazines publishing reviews of the book, not just the fact that the book exists. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make a political backroom organizer notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia — we are not looking for journalism about other things that quotes him in passing, or journalism by him, or his books metaverifying their own existence on online bookstores, we are looking for third-party journalism about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only mentioned the Time article and stuff because WP:GNG states “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Many of the articles he’s quoted in dedicate a significant portion to coverage of his work, including the Economic Times and Time Magazine piece. Links on his resignation in Hindi are dedicated coverage of him and so are some other articles already referenced or found on google. IndianPolitics-Bihar (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Also seems like a fairly obvious COI problem. Skirts89 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just over half of the sources are in English, and NONE of these support notability. I do not read Hindi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thundermarch

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

I am unable to find substantive coverage of this topic in independent reliable sources. Most search results are youtube videos and promotional links. The sources in the article are a local web news source whose language inspires no confidence in its reliability, and an advertising platform. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vanamonde93 lacks independent coverage but it can be mentioned in the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Institute of Technology, Silchar as they are the organisers and venue, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only content worth salvaging in this article is the existence of this event, which is already in the parent article, and which I have now added a reference for. There's nothing else here that is properly verifiable, and therefore nothing worth salvaging. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 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 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable event from an engineering college due to lack of coverage in independent reliable media. I agree with Vanamonde that there is nothing worth salvaging. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:50, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surf's Up! At Banzai Pipeline

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. jps (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strange timing that this has been nominated for deletion when a person heavily connected with this album, surf music producer / 911 Truther Tony Hilder aka Anthony J. Hilder has also been nominated for deletion. Is there a connection? Karl Twist (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable album. It appears in the following books, Surfin' guitars: instrumental surf bands of the sixties by Robert J. Dalley, The Listener - Volume 90 - Page 796, Surfing, the Ultimate Pleasure by Leonard Lueras, Pop Surf Culture: Music, Design, Film, and Fashion from the Bohemian Surf Boom by Brian Chidester, Domenic Priore. It was re-released by Sundazed Records in 1995. See page 84. Also mentioned in Billboard. See "Released by Sundazed". Also reviewed in Pipeline, a surf magazine. Karl Twist (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see the album discussed in [46][47], reviews in the Pipeline magazine (issue 29 page 45) and Reverb central. Not a great haul of sources, but it's worth noting that the album was released in 1963 (therefore archived sources on the internet are harder to find), but it was still discussed in the sources which include the 1973 Listener magazine (BBC, UK) and the 2008 book, multiple sources that suggest sustained interest in the album in the wider world, therefore passing WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 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 merge to Honey Cocaine. czar 02:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Drug

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

Non-notable mixtape performed by non-notable recording artist. Seems to fail WP:NALBUM and WP:NMUSIC. TheKaphox T 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Honey Cocaine. Mixtape hardly has much coverage, but Honey Cocaine is notable enough. She has significant coverage in Vice (Noisey), HipHopDX, BET, an Allmusic biography, XXL, etc., all established music/cultural publications. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 00:06, 12 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, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as previously suggested. Doradafan (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Honey Cocaine. Vorbee (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Honey Cocaine per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 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 no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nilufar Usmonova

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

Fails, Wikipedia:MUS and no Wikipedia:Independent sources. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources,per achievements by singer. Article need c/e if kept though.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article definitely needs editing. As for notability - there do not appear to be national music charts for Uzbekistan. I do note that her songs/music videos have been released on Vevo (as stated in the article and in this source [48] - that at least is clear from the Google translation), and Vevo hosts music videos from established recording labels Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI - so perhaps she meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" (what counts as an album???) The info in the article suggests that she might also meet #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", but that's hard to verify. The news website Podrobno.uz calls her a pop star and a famous singer [49], and Nuz.uz [50] calls her a "Popular domestic singer" and "one of the top performers of modern Uzbek variety art. Good vocal, inherited singer about the mother, attractive appearance and amazing performance allowed the young singer to achieve great success in show business." (according to Google Translate). So, probably notable, but hard to verify. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the notion that this article is over the threshold for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nao Fujita

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

Not Notable person per Wikipedia:BIO. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I uncovered no good sources online. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Given that the subject may meet WP:NACTOR#1, what do you think of the verifiable roles listed in this article as well as other language Wikipedia articles on this subject, which you presumably reviewed as part of WP:BEFORE? Bakazaka (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: I did a Google search about Nao Fujita and I couldn't find any sources about her, also article doesn't cite any sources only IMDB and Anime News Network's encyclopedia that's is the reason why I request for deletion. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: WP:N is clear: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". So that's not a valid reason for deletion. Could you please respond to the question about WP:NACTOR#1? Bakazaka (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Her article on Japanese wiki have sources, however most of the sources have dead links and any of the sources listed only mention her name on the movie listing websites. The sources only mention her name nothing else. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: We seem to be talking past each other. Focusing on the subject, do you think she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (WP:NACTOR#1) or not? Bakazaka (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: She has some roles in notable film however her name isn't mentioned in any of the articles. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: If she has significant roles in multiple notable films, then she passes WP:NACTOR#1. Bakazaka (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. I do see sources which confirm some roles she has voiced in anime (on Anime News Network, as news items, amazingly). If there are sources that confirm the roles she has voiced in live-action films, then she is certainly notable, per WP:NACTOR#1. I expect there are sources, in Japanese, even if the sources currently in the Japanese Wikipedia article are dead or unreliable. It would be good if someone who reads Japanese could search. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)·[reply]

Delete I don't see any notable roles in notable productions. Of the ones listed only The Promised Neverland has an article here and she has a supporting role (not main character) in that one. So she would not meet WP:ENT. No sourcing provided to indicate otherwise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons same as RebeccaGreen. We could work on this article to expand it.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 12:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the roles are notable, therefore the person passes the subject specific notability guidelines for voice actors. Dream Focus 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. For the keep !voters, what are her multiple significant roles? For every notable production it always seems like she's playing a bit role. For example it looks like she played Asta in Black Clover...but only during the scenes when he was 6. She's in Granblue Fantasy… but only as villager C. I can see that she works regularly, but she feels like the seiyuu equivalent of a session musician. As I said though, I'm prepared to be proved wrong. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:11, 28 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. No consensus for a specific outcome has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curve (payment card)

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

Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article: It should be not be deleted as with 300,000 customers, Curve is a WP:NORG

I have addressed the concern raised that "significant Reliable Sources coverage not found." I have gone through and checked every sentence is attributed to a reliable source, adding in citations as required.
I have addressed the concern "What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP ." All sentences in this article have accurate citations from reliable sources.

Andydangerfield (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your second point doesn't address the concern. Please see WP:ORGIND. Nobody is saying the sources aren't reliable or that the extracts aren't accurate. What is being said is that there is no significant (more than a passing mention) intellectually independent (not relying on announcements/quotations/company-produced info) content in the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources establishing notability that Andydangerfield has provided. However, the fact that it has 300,000 customers is irrelevant; it could have ten million customers and still not be notable. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NORG. Also per sources added by Andydangerfield. Skirts89 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the content added by Andydangerfield amounts to WP:PROMO directory listing, i.e.

"In July 2017, Curve rolled out a feature on the app allowing users to retroactively change their selected payment card for a transaction as old as 14 days.[13][14] After attracting a waiting list of 50,000 people, Curve fully launched to UK consumers in early 2018.[15] By the end of 2018, it had 300,000 customers across Europe.[16]"

Having 300,000 customers is not an indicator of notability. Andydangerfield also failed to mention at this AfD that he's an employee at Curve. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I have removed paragraph of the number of current customers due to debate in this AfD discussion as to whether this is an indicator of notability. All other sentences cite notable sources.
It says quite clearly in my bio that I am a content manager for Curve. I am happy mention that wherever else appropriate. I’m new to editing on Wikipedia so appreciate any guidance on this. My only aim is to ensure this article is a fair and accurate reflection of Curve and I am happy to amend anything deemed inappropriate in the article. Apologies, forgot to sign previous comment so re-added this comment as a signed comment. Thanks Andydangerfield (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy; another user has removed your unsigned comment to ensure the thread remains easily readable - if you forget to sign in the future, you can always edit the comment to add it, you don't need to repeat the post. They have also removed your repeated vote for the same reason - in AfD's you should not vote more than once; should you have any more top level comments to add, you can head them with Comment - if you change your vote due to being swayed by new evidence or arguments you should strike out your previous vote with <s>Stricken text</s> before posting your new one. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic startup article that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No real information outside the launch. References are a mix of reviews, funding news and business article churnalism. scope_creep^Talk 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all either based on company announcements or the content is not in-depth or significant. References fail WP:NCORP - specifically WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH - topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in national newspapers, MoneyWeek and Which? is just enough for notability. Peter James (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but coverage in national newpapers is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. It is about the type of coverage. The coverage in Moneyweek and Which is all based on the company announcement that launched the card. You will see a lot of "coverage" at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb 2018, all in "reliable sources", but failing WP:ORGIND as it is also all based on the company announcement of the launch of the new app. For example, the Irish Times, TechCrunch, Finextra, nomadgate, crowdfundinsider ... tons of coverage on the launch. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between a review and a press release. Obviously reviews are likely to be of new products or services, but coverage is selective: many products and services are not reviewed or written about in national newspapers and well known magazines read by many people. Although these is the most significant coverage, there is some from other reliiable sources before and after the launch. Peter James (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Classic fail of WP:ORGIND. It is generic news associated with a startup. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the references are "reviews" in the context of somebody getting and using the card and writing about their experiences. Instead, the references are regurgitating the information provided by the company in terms of (1) What it is (2) the benefits (3) the costs. This is classic churnalism and the WP:NCORP guidelines were explicitly tightened up last year to exclude these types of articles for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 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) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed a large portion of the sources on the page for being from tabloids or unreliable publications, but there are several good articles that focus on the company in depth, enough in my mind to clearly pass the harsh standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. I added some Financial Times coverage of a lawsuit, and articles such as this one in TechCrunch focus on the company at large, not just the launch itself. Also staff coverage in Forbes which isn't all positive. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://techcrunch.com is too indiscriminate to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, while [www.forbes.com/sites www.forbes.com/sites] is a user-submitted area, not editorial content. FT is a passing mention. This is still a directory listing on a nn org that is trying to use Wikipedia to promote itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be clear, the Financial Times article is not "coverage of a lawsuit", but an article based on a blog post on Curve's website, various tweet from purported Curve users and a statement from American Express. There is no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and fails WP:ORGIND. I agree with the above on the TechCrunch article (based on the PR surrounding the launch of their app in the UK and also based on "a call with Curve founder and CEO"), meets the definition of chrunalism and therefore also fails ORGIND. I also agree with the above that the Forbes article is from their "sites" section which is explicitly excluded for the establishment of notability in WP:NCORP and is classified as "Dependent coverage". HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most of the articles count in part as churnalism (most business articles do), but scattered throughout the fully admissible TechCrunch and Forbes articles (corporate sellouts, yes, but still known for fact-checking and hardly as ridiculous as the Daily Mail or Enquirer), there is enough journalistic perspective to show the topic is notable. Concerning the advertising, the trivial or promotional details can be chopped out quickly by a discerning and neutral editor, and so no need to delete on those grounds alone. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some new sources for perusing. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhim Shubber, May 25, 2016 It’s no fun when Amex throws your startup a Curve ball, The Financial Times
February 17, 2016 New Card Allows Users to Use Amex Anywhere - Without Paying Surcharge, The Daily Telegraph
Steve O'Hear, January 2019 Amex blocks Curve as the fintech startup vows to fight 'anti-competetitive' decision, TechCrunch

The first is generic, it is introducing the card to readers of the FT and introduces nothing that is not covered by other churnalism. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND

The second one is exactly the same format, it describes the card, then the founders, then the funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND

The third is real news, but it exactly the type of news that comes from a startup. Startup news is covered by WP:NCORP. That was part of the reason it was written. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with scope_creep. Please take a read of WP:NCORP (especially the WP:ORGIND section) to understand in more detail why those sources so not establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best worst method

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

Appears to be one epidemic's pet statistical project. Sources are all primary originating (presumably) with the author of the article. Searches reveal little of benefit - although many hits for " best worst outcome" as a generalised English expression. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:OR Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite and expand. I found several recent papers ([51] [52] [53] [54]) from different authors that appear to build on this research; these sources appear to satisfy WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the phrase is widely used prior to 2015, for example best–worst scaling is often refered to as "best worst method".--Pontificalibus 06:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 06:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT - the current article is only sourced to a primary source and borders on promoting the method. There are certainly some citations, but I'm not sure they are usable to write an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seem to be quite a few scholarly papers on this subject. In addition to the ones ComplexRational found there are also [55], [56] (in which admittedly Rezaei is a coauthor), [57] and others. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 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) 16:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NUKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GN-z11 (talk • contribs)
Keep - references provided above, by mutually unconnected research teams, easily demonstrate currency in scientific discourse. Article really needs those additional refs, however; sourcing is definitely insufficient at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find quality sources, not linked to the author of this term, that consider this term notable. Seems like this Dr. has made-up a term to an obvious decision making process and tried to claim ownership of it; hence the article is also promotional. Britishfinance (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Alternate Merge to Pairwise comparison: A 2015 neologism by Rezaei that has not made it past the mathematical and scientific studying and research, new papers, and alternate models. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms such as these. Compare different multi-criteria decision making interval ratios to represent pairwise differences (pairwise comparisons): Euclidean best-worst method (Euclidean BWM), Cognitive Best Worst Method (CBWM), VIKOR method, and Chebyshev BWM. A common problem in practice is that pairwise comparison methods usually lack consistency such as the original non-linear model (NLM) so in 2016 Rezaei introduced the linear model. This has been argued as not accurate and an alternate MILM model has been suggested. "Scholarly research" is great but we shouldn't create articles based just on these as we would have thousands of articles on terms and words supported sometimes by just an author with cross-references from other research papers debating, contradicting, or otherwise modifying and even changing a term. I would not be opposed to the different models listed in a parent article (like "Pairwise comparison") and creating articles if and when reliable sources show independent notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Substantial work was done to this article during the AfD, and every comment after that work began has been to keep, so I'm down-weighting the early delete !votes. If anybody still feels this should be deleted, no prejudice against bringing it back for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's planned invasion of the Parthian Empire

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

As the title says, a planned invasion (i.e. it didn't take place). The Julius Caesar article already mentions these plans, so I don't think any segment of the article's only sentence is worthy of being merged into another article. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author). There are similar articles in Wikipedia. Like this one: Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom. More information can be added to the article. Like number of his army and legions, which was greatest army Rome yet seen. Amir El Mander (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir El Mander: Are you willing to further expand this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Maybe. Also others can help in expanding it. Amir El Mander (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir I could perhaps later help with the expanding if you can write down some good sources that aren't too hard to access. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Plutarch's CaesarAmir El Mander (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh Parthia is simply mentioned 3 times in that source, without going into any detail. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are plenty of sources alright, but most of the ones I've seen are mostly composed of what-ifs and don't have much detail on Caesar's plans. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for now. I suspect this could become a decent article, on par with the Napoleon one, with info on the background, aims of the invasion and why it didn't go ahead. But for now, it's just a one-liner that doesn't add anything more than what's in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Julius Caesar article that already mentions it. This is barely a two-line stub and there is no need for it; it adds nothing. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy . As presently construed this is a poor fork, with less content on the subject matter, than Antony's Parthian War#Background, Roman–Parthian Wars#Roman Republic vs Parthia. I'm not sure an article on Caesar's plans can be developed (as I'm unsure there are in-depth sources on his plans beyond him having such plans) - however we would expect a spinout on such a plan to be more detailed than the parent article(s) on the subject - which in this case the present article is not. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or userfy if the creator wants it. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There can be nothing further to say on the subject than we have here. It might also be mentioned in the Roman-Parthian Wars article, but I see no prospect of this ever becoming more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While the invasion did not happen, nobody seems to deny the plans were made; if the invasion had happened, it would have been on a material scale. Thus the topic is notable and acceptable for a WP article (check). The article is a stub but is referenced with a basic stub structure (check). Therefore, while I would love to see more content (and ultimately a full article), I how can I object to existence of a properly referenced stub on a notable topic? Many great WP articles started in this way. Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Updating to Strong Keep post update of article.

Keep. I am unaware of the Wikipedia policy for deleting pages on notable topics, becasue they are stubs. I do not want a page for every concept, noun or failed plan; but I think all of us here would one day love to read this article. I will help how I can.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment. Some great work by Dushan Jugum in developing this article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant question in AFD is not whether the article has been developed, but whether it can be developed. And it sounds like there's enough information out there to write a decent article that wouldn't need to be merged into another. If memory serves, Caesar had already nominated a magister equitum for the campaign when he was assassinated, which suggests a fairly advanced stage of planning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, now has (just?) enough references to reflect this (and it could be argued enough to bring it out of the unreferenced/too few references quagmire that is stubbels into the wonderful article start journey but i won't:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added two more refs, some text and de-stubbed. It still needs work and lots of it, but I feel many of the legitimate complaints about the page have been addressed. Sorry for editing the projects on the talk page, but I have been told it is best practise in such cases. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete all. WP:G3.Just Chilling (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Girls

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

This is almost certianly a part of a walled garden hoax. There was only one song called Leave Right Now to have made the UK charts and that was in 2003 a song by Will Young. There are absolutely no sources found any where about the group the song or the album. I shall be bundling the the pages for the same reasons. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

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 Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: definite hoax, as a check of the UK and Ireland chart archives will reveal no such group has ever charted, contrary to the claims in the articles. Article creator twice attempted to revert their hoax by blanking the pages, but was reverted. I think these articles could be deleted under CSD G3. Richard3120 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all as WP:G3. Many entities called Riverside Girls have existed, but a 1997 band appearing on Top of the Pops? Blue Peter? No. Good catch, nominator. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 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 delete. There is clear consensus that players who scrape over the line of the SNG and can be shown to have essentially ended their careers are not presumed to pass GNG unless clear sources can be presented. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phakamani Mngadi

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who made 1 substitute's appearance (a total of 3 minutes of play) with a fully-pro club. The article so narrowly reaches the presumption of notability at NFOOTBALL that without satisfying the GNG it cannot be viewed as notable (plenty of AfD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others). All of the online coverage of this person in secondary sources appears to be transfer news, statistics databases or match reports (e.g., routine coverage), and there are a handful of brief articles published by his employers (Eupen or Kaizer Chiefs) which I don't believe are secondary sources. I can't see how this article satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I noticed that this article was previously included in a bundled AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntuthuko Radebe. However, the discussion did not consider his 3 minutes of fame as that occurred after the AfD was closed. Jogurney (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 24 years old.Not players who have retired.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mngadi has been without a club since May 2017 when he was released by Eupen. I wouldn't assume he is "currently playing" without a source (I found that he had an unsuccessful 2-week trial with Golden Arrows in August 2018, but there are no other signs that he has continued a footballing career). Moreover, I never suggested NFOOTBALL provides a preumption of non-notability - I agreed that it provides a presumption of notability - just that it can be rebutted, as I think it should be in this instance. Jogurney (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jogurney; there is plenty of past AFD consensus which shows that technically scraping by on NFOOTBALL is not enough with a comprehensive GNG failure (as is the case here). The 'allowance' we grant players is usually reserved for youngsters who are at the beginning of the career; as Jogurney says, given he has not had a club for 2 years it is likely his career has ended, with nothing to show for it that merits and article on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 14:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Highlands Park coach Da Gama says ""they have used the international break to work on some areas where they have struggled‚ as well as look at potential new players.These include former Sundowns defender Mzikayise Mashaba‚ ex-Kaizer Chiefs wingers Phakamani Mngadi and Abia Nale‚ as well as former Ajax Cape Town forward Tendai Ndoro‚ who is into his third week with the team.Nobody has been signed yet‚ though I have left the Tendai Ndoro negotiations up to [club CEO] Larry Brookstone." As per this article on 12 September 2018. Being out of contract does not mean retired for 24 year old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This simply means that Mngadi had two unsuccessful trials during August and September 2018. It suggests he is not performing at a level where a fully-pro team would contract his services (not to mention he literally has only played 3 minutes at that level in his entire career). It does not suggest he is "currently playing" at a professional level (or even at a semi-professional level). Jogurney (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTY shouldn't supersede WP:GNG, sources seem a little run of the mill, Govvy (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have pointed out, he passes WP:NFOOTY, and passing a WP:SNG is typically sufficient. And for whatever it's worth, he has two appearances with fully pro clubs - he played in a Belgian Cup match between two WP:FPL teams in 2016-17 as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY with flying colors, having played in two professional leagues. Editors cannot override consensuses and target stubs for deletion just because they feel like it. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am following long-standing consensus - check out some of the many AfDs I linked above. Jogurney (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY. Appreciate whats been said above, but deleting articles in this way just brings inconsistency as it doesn't have any real effect on the supposed wider issue - evidently, otherwise there wouldn't be editors questioning it here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver. R96Skinner (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-pros are inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman and others above. In this instance, the NFOOTY presumption is rebutted by the lack of sources to satisfy GNG, the very low playing time, and the two years that have passed since he's had a club. Levivich 01:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, and had fully professional games in 2 professional leagues.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He played 3 minutes in one fully-pro league. He also played 9 minutes in a cup match against D2 Roeselaere (cup matches between clubs from fully-pro leagues are considered roughly the same under NFOOTBALL). So, he has a total of 12 minutes of "fame." Jogurney (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems notable to me, considering his appearance is with Kaizer Chiefs, who are one of the largest teams in the Sub-Sahara, and Eupen is a D1 club.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate the title as a redirect to List of road interchanges in the United States, that can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interchanges in Pennsylvania

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

Unnecessary page. Interchanges are already mentioned in each respected Route article. Other states do not have their own list of interchanges. Tinton5 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge into List of road interchanges in the United States. The fact of interchanges being mentioned in each of the two or three route articles they belong to suggests that having a separate article or list-article item about each of them is a good idea. The separate article or list-article item can have photo(s) and more info, then be linked from each of the 2 or 3 route articles. There obviously exist individually notable interchanges, and a list of them in one state can be notable, and the U.S.-wide list is obviously hugely valid (and was resoundingly supported in an AFD previously). It is an editorial matter of whether to split out a state-level list or not. I tend to think it is better to keep this split out now. --Doncram (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The list-article is substantial and includes references at the end. Coverage of several interchanges is quite extensive. Having a list-article of them probably heads of creation of separate articles for each one. It would be fair to tag the list-article for more specific inline references, though. --Doncram (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I'm not a big fan of interchange articles (I prefer to mention interchange details in the road articles), this article does serve a purpose to provide information about some of the more notable interchanges in the state that would be too little for a standalone article. Dough4872 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An awful amount of original research and self-published sources (of what few sources exist) in the article but the general consensus per WP:ROADOUTCOMES is that highway interchanges aren't inherently notable and generally (bar a few exceptions in the notability policy) should be mentioned only in the respective highway article. Also per nom that no similar article exists for other US states. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ROADOUTCOMES says nothing about interchanges. If you don't like numerous separate articles about individual interchanges, this list-article should be kept, to head off their being created separately. There is pretty clearly enough material for several of the interchanges to sustain separate articles (though the sources are either at the end of the article or need to be added). In other words, if the outcome here is "delete", I expect I or other editors would create a raft of new articles. :) --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "what links here" shows that there are a lot of inbound links to this list-article from highway articles and elsewhere. These include redirects for the following interchanges, presumably each to their specific list-item, for:

These are likely candidates to have separate articles. And, if there is a category of such interchanges in Pennsylvania, then it would be justified to have a list-article corresponding to them, to summarize about them and provide photos and redlinks and more, per wp:CLNT. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it does say: Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones unless in your opinion an exit and an interchange aren't the same thing. All of those links redirect to this article. If they were notable they would probably have at least some independent and reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um. What i said, interchanges are not covered in ROADOUTCOMES, and sure, the list-article could be tagged for more specific inline references about each of the separate interchanges that have extensive coverage. I probably won't reply more than here and once below. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are likely candidates to have separate articles, the sections they redirect to in the current article are unreferenced. I checked for sources for a couple and found no signficant coverage. If uncited statements were removed from the article we would have very little left.--Pontificalibus 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is the criteria for inclusion on this page? It says major interchanges, but doesn't describe what major means. I have a feeling that if "major" was defined, the list would be four times as long as it is. It is far better to mention the interchanges on the respective highway articles and move on. –Fredddie ™ 15:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of criteria for list-item inclusion should take place at the Talk page of the list-article. Clearly IMO some of them would be individually notable, others should be "list-item notable" (with addition of specific inline references) and maybe some need not be mentioned (though a standard would have to be defined). --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these interchanges need to be cut out of the list; some of them are simple cloverleaf interchanges between two roads. Generally, for an interchange to be included in the list I say it should have a complex nonstandard design (not a basic cloverleaf, trumpet, etc.) and involve a junction between at least three routes. If we do not want to keep this list, some of the more notable interchanges (such as Mid-County Interchange) can be split into their own articles. Dough4872 04:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not necessarily disagreeing, but to continue the thought, from "if we do not want to keep this list", then we will see creation of separate articles, justifying re-creation of the list-article. So let's just keep the list. I probably won't reply more than here and once above. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that this is a notable topic. Do we have any independent reliable discussing "interchanges in Pennsylvania" in detail? I would have no objection to the creation of a navigational list article in the future if we end up having seperate articles on several interchanges in Pennsylvania. Pontificalibus 13:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive information available, including this PennDOT site with interchange drawings for each interchange; interchanges lists and locations and other info at PA Turnpike.Com, news articles like this Bucks County local news article about a turnpike interchange opening about a $450 million project to create just one interchange with flyovers (?). With argument

“Without a doubt, a crucial project benefit besides congestion relief and mobility is the economic boost for Bucks County and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania region,” Commissioner Deon said. “The completed interchange could support thousands of new jobs in existing industries in addition to the more than 500 sustained construction jobs we’ve already seen. From a market attractiveness standpoint, we’re looking at employment growth of thousands of regional jobs along with hundreds of millions of dollars in new business sales.”

these are big projects, big dollars, addressing big costs of congestion. There are lots of hits on the general topic of "pennsylvania interchanges" and the like, and there will be lots more when searching by names for each of the individual ones, and such coverage adds up. Ping User:Pontificalibus.

Maybe I led this AFD discussion astray... let's not force the split of this article into multiple articles in order to justify recreation of the combined article. That is silly, just keep one list-article. For those who have opinions about the relatively lesser interchanges covered, take that to the Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PennDOT and Turnpike.Com, while presenting useful information, do not contribute to demonstrating notability. They are not independent sources as they're involved in operating and maintaining the roads. If such information was deemed to be sufficiently worthy of note that an independent source thought it worthwhile to publish, then that would help establish notability, but I haven't found such a source. The local news article you quote may help establish the notability of that particular interchange, although it does rely heavily on quotes from PA Turnpike officials and reads like a press release. --Pontificalibus 09:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khizr-i-Rah

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

Source searches in English and Urdu turn up little in the way of significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Opting for AFD over PROD as the Urdu source searches are machine translated as I don't speak it myself. SITH (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a 12-page academic paper about this poem, this paper calls it "famous" and this one calls it "well-known". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources use the transcription "Khizr-e-Rah" and I'm sure there are other possibilities:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of sources for this. I haven't put any in yet because I seem to spend so much time these days working on AfDed articles, but I may get to it. Mccapra (talk) 19:16, 20 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sodbury Players

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

Source searches turn up little other than affiliated sources such as ticket outlets. Other than a passing mention in a "things to do" article in a minor publication, the most I could find is this article in a local paper. I don't think organisational notability has been demonstrated due to the lack of depth of coverage. SITH (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No single significant RS (outside of the local Gazette). Article has been around for over a decade and the only reference is to their own website. Britishfinance (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is an absence of consensus, and a reasonable reliance on sources for keeping. bd2412 T 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Storonsky

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

Founder of Revolut, a fintech startup. Does not appear to be notable independently from his company. Sources are only routine media coverage plus two interviews. I propose deleting or merging into Revolut. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable and really nothing worth merging. Џ 12:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Revolut) - while there's a few sources around the place, when removing the non-independent aspects (often interviews in reliable sources), there's not sufficient coverage of the man. Usually the non-interview but is mostly about the company itself. I don't think there's anything of particular note worthy of being merged, but founders are a reasonable redirect point. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup and additional sourcing but person is noteworthy based on even a cursory Google search. This is one of the largest current startups in the UK and one of the most noteworthy in Europe. Perhaps MinotaurX can help by adding more sources. Misterpottery (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: - as the one !voting Keep, and saying the sources are visible from a cursory search, it's usually expected to count it as a supported !vote if you can point us towards a couple of good sources, even if you don't add them to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: This is a discussion about Nikolay Storonsky article, not about Revolut. Storonsky is not a startup but a person. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: Sure offhand I see some good ones. [58] is written by a forbes staff writer (not a contributor like some of their other spam). [59] - paywalled but a featured interview in a top UK newspaper. [60] - him speaking at a major US tech conference. [61] - BBC interview discussing his personal decisions taken when starting Revolut. Misterpottery (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: ALL of your links are articles about Revolut. The fist one is an interview - please, hope you are not arguing that someone is notable and should have an article in an encyclopaedia because he/she was interviewed by a journalist? The Times is another interview! The TechCrunch article is, technically, a promo of the speakers at their own conference. BBC is still another (video) interview and again focused on Revolut, not on its founder.

Please, PLEASE read the General Notability Guideline, especially the part independent from the subject. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: General Notability Guideline seems applicable. Like an artist with a single work there are parts here that specifically focus on him and his noteworthy background that would be indicative of any company with a high profile founder. Many many pages fulfil such WP:GNG guidelines. Look at Sundar Pichai or John Collison or Travis Kalanick for example. All are notable singularly for their success in one company and nearly every piece is focused on Google. Nikolay has specific coverage that meets WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NTEMP, and wouldn't be useful to include in the Revolut article in my opinion. Misterpottery (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: I think you are trolling now. I quoted you the policies, and especially, sourcing policies, and instead of acknowledging you keep arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry, it is quite a stretch of the imagination to compare Storonsky to Pichai. I am done explaining. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:30, 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) 14:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Revolut per nom. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do think this article needs significant improvement and some POV fixing, but after some research I think subject passes WP:GNG. I will be editing the article to add some articles I found on Financial Times, Forbes, and Business Insider. Skirts89 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep There are lots of decent quality sources (per "News" button above) with interviews on this individual. WP has a long list of tech-BLPs whose accomplishments and coverage would not come close to Storonsky's. Not fair to simply merge him with his company. Britishfinance (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. How editors can suggest to Keep this (and "strongly" too) on the basis mainly of interviews is beyond me. Plus, we get the tired ol' "there's also other stuff around" argument. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: But the interviews are what gives him notability (and this article is not comprehensive in listing these interviews). This is not a case of a "best of the worst" type arguement; my point is that WP has many other valid tech–BLPs who are less notable than this BLP.Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Public figurehead of a significant fintech company in the UK, which is currently in the press at least once per week. Google News is showing 10 references to him in the last month alone, including in Quartz, Telegraph and Business Insider. On top of that I'm seeing standalone interviews in Telegraph, FT, Business Insider and Forbes. ScepticalChymist (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this club fails notability standards. Just Chilling (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skagit Bicycle Club

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

Ineligible for PROD as one was declined years ago. This fails WP:NORG, the only reason I didn't opt for {{db-club}} is that it uses the word "major", which is a credible claim of significance. SITH (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a single solid RS on this organization. How an article on a 200-member organisation survived over a decade on WP on the basis of one article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom; no evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles P. Delorme

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

Non-notable person. Insufficient evidence that this person has been the subject of significant coverage in independent media. The French Wikipedia page from which this page was translated does not offer any better evidence of coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference provided does nothing more than verify that someone with this name exists. In searching for better coverage, I have found nothing to indicate that he meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC notability guidelines, though perhaps someone with a better grasp of the French language may find something? Jmertel23 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference given establishes nothing. Can't find a solid RS of notbility in english. Britishfinance (talk) 16:14, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ashley

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sourced only by qobuz.com (a sales site rather than an independent source), ascap.com (a trade listing), and youtube (WP:UGC) Cabayi (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Might just be too soon for him, and he may attain enough notability in the future for a Wikipedia article. But as it stands, the most notable thing about his career to date is guesting on a single that reached number 87 on the UK Singles Chart, and there's a dearth of reliable sources talking about him. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-Émile Rochon

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

Biography which isn't citing any reliable sources for the purposes of getting the subject over WP:GNG. As always, every president of every organization is not automatically handed a free pass into Wikipedia just because he exist(s/ed) — it can get him in the door if he can be shown to clear GNG on the sourcing, but the only sources cited here at all are unpublished private personal correspondence and a photograph, not reliable source coverage about him. Leading an organization is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have decent sourcing, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to ACFEO. Nothing close to an RS on notability. Article been around for a decade and referencing is based on one low-grade site. Britishfinance (talk) 16:17, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Octopus Skull Experimental Musick PFestival

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

Apparently short lived and no reliable independent sources to support notability Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails NEVENT. The "red-links" all over the article underline the lack of notability. Britishfinance (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Worthy as musical events go, possibly. Unworthy of Wikipedia space, certainly. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find no sources that this "festival" (actually more like a pub crawl with bands) was ever noticed by the outside world. It was sponsored by local enterprises with local bands playing at local pubs. Local is okay, but notability is more important here and there is no evidence of that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosy Maze

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

Lack of notability. The closest to WP:SIGCOV a search for sources reveals is^[62], and thus even WP:AGW with the print article this does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist has an eight record discography that are all linked chronologically and Rosy Maze is right in the middle. I don't think it practical to delete this page.Paradise coyote (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the earlier albums in that list do not have pages either, so it should not be an issue. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Albums are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the artist who recorded them has a Wikipedia article, or because of what order they happen to fall in within the artist's overall discography — getting reviewed in NME is certainly a start down the path toward notability, but one reliable source is not enough to get it to the finish line all by itself. An album's notability is demonstrated by contextualizing its importance, in terms of creative achievement or commercial success or award-winningness, not just by minimally verifying that it exists — but nothing stated here is evidence of importance at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia is not a depository of randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus. Sources have not been refuted. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Growth recession

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

I can’t find more than a handful of refs for use of this neologism and most seem to derived from this article. I don’t think this term is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 07:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see multiple uses, some of which pre-date this article. See: [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72].Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a fan of the way this article is written, but the term is used in capital markets. Even Investopedia has an article on the term [73]. Britishfinance (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources indicated by Icewhiz - notability clearly demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (choreographer)

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

No evidence of notability. Most refs are YouTube. The Times is a gossip column feature about their new baby. Nothing that adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:CREATIVE. Photoportraits and YouTube videos are not evidence of notability in Wikipedia.-The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Avara

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

Mayor of a city of less than 25,000 people, a position that likely fails WP:NPOL. Also lacks enough sustained significant coverage to merit WP:GNG, most coverage is related to his being mayor of the town during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath so the page may have been created due to WP:1E GPL93 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pascagoula MS is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced or substanced anywhere near well enough to make him special either. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost nothing comes up on searches, except for one comment to CNN during the hurricane [74]. The article has a reference to "Transcripts from Larry King Live" but this reference is a bust and links to "CNNStudentNews" with no mention of subject. So the case for notability is around being the mayor of a town of less than 25,000 people. Britishfinance (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlie Collins

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

Not enough evidence of notability under the rules for actors or singers. Much of her acting work is small background roles and her music album received no media notice. In both endeavors, the only sources found are routine listings in agency sites and retail/streaming services, with very little significant and reliable media coverage. Also note that the article makes no statement of notability, so it may also be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of her acting (including, I'd say, her voiceover work) satisfied WP:NACTOR, as it's almost entirely episodic. She's even further away from satisfying WP:MUSICBIO, since almost nothing came up in a BEFORE sweep on that, certainly not reliable/independent. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sources to pass WP:NACTOR of WP:GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:MUSICBIO. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:ACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System

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

Rather random listing of programs. Unsourced and often untranslated. WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Seoul Broadcasting System television programmes; indexing notable TV series by their original broadcast network is completely standard for both lists and categories. If the inclusion criteria needs to be tightened to exclude nonoriginal programming, that's a fixable issue, as are any translation issues or sourcing (if the series is notable, then its originating network is obviously going to be verifiable). Please do not try to use AFD for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is indeed a standard, bounded list of notable topics. Issues with its completeness, and needing additional sourcing, are solvable problems and not a deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per suggestions elaborated above by postdlf and matt91486. Subject meets requirements for stand-alone lists in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kish Mauve. The basic information of note can be preserved there. bd2412 T 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Mauve (EP)

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

Not notable EP album (no studio album) with 3 songs by band on borderline notability. Article is stub, lack reliable sources for album (one archived source of "sundaybest.net/site/releases" is not enough). Create by User:Cazxiro, no active user. Album totally fails of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NMUSIC. Part of data I integrated with main article of band. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod as I feel the nom does not make an adequate case (also this appears to be related to a content dispute at 2 Hearts (2007 song)); notability of the band is not the question here, though I feel there are enough sources available to show that they are; "no studio album" (?) doesn't mean anything, and the fact that the article is a stub and was created by a now inactive user are not grounds for deletion. PC78 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, there is no relationship with our dispute in another discussion. Please focus on facts and not personal trips. This is not notable EP album (no studio album) with 3 songs by band on borderline notability, album totally fails of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NMUSIC. And now, this article is rubbish - stub, lack of reliable sources etc. It does not matter that you can fix it - in this form is to delete and.... it does not make sense to repair it because does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have "focused on facts", there is nothing personal here. You have recently edited several articles related to Kish Mauve including the aforementioned song (which features on this EP) so I don't see how you can say it is not related. I am not familiar with this band or their music so I offer no further comment with regard to notability, but we do not delete articles simply because they are short and lack sources - if we did we would have to delete half of Wikipedia. That is not what notability means. PC78 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about the issue of hopeless article and lack reliable sources, the most important argument is not notable album and does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. You came here for me. You instead of understanding the arguments in intro, you prefer trolling. Please stop trolling and spamming here. Wikipedia:Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia, if you can not accept it - go away from Wikipedia. Your trolling and spamming will not be accepted here. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling and spamming"? I have done no such thing - please be civil and assume good faith. The problem is not that I don't understand your argument for deletion, it's that you don't really make one. Simply saying it isn't notable is not enough. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First: you are watching my editions - I have evidence, you came here for me, you are not here accidentally, these are fact and you know it. Second: article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia, you must accept rules and standards of the Wikipedia or go away from Wikipedia. Your posts mean only this: "I have somewhere the Wikipedia:Notability and I always oppose for you". Wikipedia is wrong place for you, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the argument above, PC78 made valid calls for proper deletion arguments, which the nominator countered with accusations rather than reasoned responses. The following are NOT reasons to delete: being a stub, having been created by a non-active user, having too few references (see WP:NEXIST), being an EP (which by the way IS a studio album, just a short one). The nominator seems unfamiliar with the finer points of WP:NMUSIC, which do not support deleting the article for any of the reasons given. The article surely needs some cleanup and expansion, but this deletion nomination should be withdrawn as unsupportable and possibly uncivil. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: I would like to remind you that: "being a stub, having been created by a non-active user, having too few references, being an EP" are just additives in my description. The main argument is notability and I wrote about it two times (see above)! The article can be improved (add reliable sources, add more text and other) but article does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia. Not every album is encyclopedic, before you start writing tips, I advise you to read the guidelines because you're making a fuss. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have "written about" notability "two times", it is only via the repeated statement Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia. As far as I can determine, you have said the album is not notable because notability is something Wikipedia cares about. That is not an explanation of why it's not notable. See WP:JNN. Also note that I have not yet voted, but I do see the need for better arguments before I vote. That's not "making a fuss" unless I am the latest member of the conspiracy that you see all around you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: - see below. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a fair bit of searching and was able to find a couple sources not currently included in the article. a brief review of the EP from dmcworld.net and an article in The Times. The latter is sadly behind a paywall, but based on the visible content and the excerpt shown in Google search results, it seems likely to be relevant (note that the article's date is also a week or so after the EP's release date). Not sure if these would be considered sufficiently significant or reliable to sustain notability (maybe it depends on what's in that Times article). Dindon~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS say: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings show 7 points - requirements of the Wikipedia for music articles, in brief: "Has been the subject (red. not just a mention somewhere) of multiple (red. many sources), non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published (red. no page of band, records, label, producer etc), and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." Other stipulations: appeared on music chart, certified gold or higher, nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

So, this album does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. In addition, a simple sentence of Wikipedia:Notability works here: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Separate article of this album does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia, the question is only one: to delete or to merge with main article (and create redirect)? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this edit: [75] in which Subtropical-man accused me of trolling and then deleted it. He has also accused PC78 of trolling, which is still visible above. Neither of us actually voted to keep the article yet, and mere comments have been subjected to baseless accusations of foul play. The nominator is engaged in uncivil behavior and is also bludgeoning the process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can other editors please give an opinion on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kish Mauve. Maybe it's notable, but the more important point is that it is unlikely to ever be sourced well enough to expand beyond permastub status. So, per WP:NOPAGE, redirect to the band's article, preserving the history so that anyone can merge anything useful to the band page without further AfD involvement. Bakazaka (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM and there is little to discuss beyond that, aside from arguments that are variants of WP:ILIKEIT. There are simply no sources verifying notability. Nothing can be merged, as has been with obvious kindness suggested, either, because unsourced material is not moved elsewhere but deleted outright. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ReDirect. No single material RS on this album; any RS I could find was about the band and their songs and not this album per se [76]. Spreading the actions of a borderline WP:GNG band over several WP articles (e.g. there is a Template Box at the bottom of a series of Kish Mauve articles) is the wrong approach. Have one central article on the band and anything that is struggling with GNG (e.g. songs or albums) should be added/merged to that article to consolidate references. In a decade's time, these articles are going to get deleted as their thin/weak sources drop away and interest wanes, so consolidation will help preservation of the band. Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lang

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

non notable and promotional. The Forbes listing alone is not enough for notability , and everything else is PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable business woman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are interviews with Lang in a number of widely-read sites in different countries, I will add them to the article to help demonstrate notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interviews are not suitable to establish notability. They are not independent of the subject nor are they coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in this article are...utter garbage, for lack of a better word and this reads like a massive PR piece that I'd expect from the subjects website. I also see no evidence she meets GNG after news search, books etc... Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess we have different opinions on what is considered "garbage". The Hindu is a large national newspaper; Deutche Welle is the German equivalent of America's NPR; Eesti Päevaleht is a major Estonian newspaper; Wired is a well-known tech magazine in the US and UK, and Forbes is also a reputable American periodical. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having forbes in the name doesn't automatically make it a good source. This is useless. It's a profile. It's not coverage, it's not independent. This is mostly an interview, this is a list, this i don't have an opinion on and will leave it for a native speaker, another interview, another interview, basically an interview, not even about Lang, not actual coverage, listicle, not coverage. Even if somehow these were all amazing in depth pieces, the article is rife with bio spam. Praxidicae (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see further discussion now that LovelyLillith has improved the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per current sources available. I kind of agree with analysis by Praxidicae. The quality of references are not great, and the ones in reliable sources do not offer much. Some lot of the references contain a quote or two from her. Many of the references are actually referring somewhat to the company, instead of the founder. Being the founder of a notable company could be reasonable claim to notability of course, but there has to be significant coverage, such as about the person's role in founding it, contributions, impact. In this case, there is a dearth of independent third party coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient independent, reliable, significant coverage - in Aiomag.de, Gründerszene (which I have found and added), the Kitty Knowles article in Forbes - these are about her role in starting the company. Plus there is some less significant or less independent coverage as well (SBS, and the interviews have a para or two about her before the interview questions, plus are serious questions about her work). It's also sustained over several years. AfD is not about the quality of the article, so any "bio spam" that the article is supposedly "rife" with could be removed by any editor who cared to do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The keep suggestions are variations of WP:ILIKEIT and fail to convince. Advertorials, interviews, and the like do not an article make; rather, a brochure. This text appears to be yet another vanity side-project of an entrepreneur. We are being deluged by them of late. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of her notability seems to hang on Forbes. I was wondering why someone whose notability is about fashion has no articles from the main fashion magazines (e.g. Vogue, Elle, etc.). My impression of fashion is that if something is notable, it gets noted, and fast. On that basis I was leaning to Delete, but then I saw references to Women's Wear Daily (WWD), whose WP article describes it as "the bible of fashion" (I had never head of it). My question is whether her WWD mentions are material? Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her projects are arguably as much tech as they are fashion because of the integration of the technology. There are a number of references from tech news sources. Wired, Motherboard, SXSW. She also displayed items for Lakme Fashion Week and Berlin Fashion Week, which are well-known. I've actually held back from adding much more material that comes from fashion blogs or sounded promotional. LovelyLillith (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @LovelyLillith: I think you made the right call sticking to the best possible fashion references and avoiding blogs etc. She lives in a world between tech and fashion. Her tech is not notable enough to make her a "real" tech entrepreneur (her LED is not a notable techology), and Forbes articles are a red-herring in this regard. I think she is really LED-tech in fashion (e.g. applied tech), but we get back to the same issue of her strongest fashion reference being WWD? This is very borderline. She is not as un-notable as many other BLPs at AfD, where there is not a single solid RS, but in terms of "several significant independent RS" I feel we are "reaching" for it, which I don't think we should be doing in a BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Lang herself is not considered notable, then ElektroCouture probably is. In addition to what's already in the article, there are other sources about the label and clothing - Der Tagesspiegel [77] and [78], Spiegel Online [79], Berliner Zeitung [80], a few paras in a Women's Wear Daily article about Lakme Fashion Week [81]. If this article about Lisa Lang is not kept, please draftify rather than deleting, so it can be revised into one about ElektroCouture. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BLP - leaning Delete but a second relist is appropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having reflected on this per my comments above; case relies on two weak arguements (she is not a clear tech-blp, nor a fashion-blp) trying to combine to make one proper case. She does not have at least two clear strong RS, of which she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the discussion above, stressing that interviews are acceptable for sourcing but not for assessing notability. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 21 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. Lourdes 13:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Tajik

(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) 11:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - politician who has not held any public office. All the coverage are passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in english that makes him notable. Poorly written and promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN and before the polls close too. The gaping lack of encyclopaedic value is underlined by items in the text such as 'He met so and so when at a party conference'. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this brochure attempting to pass as a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Weitsman

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

~~Local businessman. The references appear either trivial, or PR.. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sources used are from reputable news outlets and do not include press releases or primary sources. Subject has been covered by both local and national news outlets (NYT, architectural digest, ESPN).Deadbolt44 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated page to address and remove sources that appear PR, made minor restructuring edits and line edits.Deadbolt44 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very well-known philanthropist in Upstate New York. His collection of stoneware is in a major, permanent gallery named in his honor at the New York State Museum. He single-handedly rediscovered stoneware as a folk art form. Sorry to disagree with you, DGG. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian,If you can add material about the importance of the collecting, and RSs to show that folk art historians consider that his work on stoneware is a major contribution, I'll withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time until Saturday morning to work on this. Sorry! Bearian (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. AfDwithdrawn--Ihave cofidence in Berian DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Canadian Who's Who

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per WP:TEXTBOOKS - it's obviously not a textbook but serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public seems to apply. There's a lot of mentions of the book (like [82]) that wouldn't meet NBOOK#1, but I think are sufficient here. We have an article on Yellow Pages Group, and this seems similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I was considering nominating this myself, but these two sources [83] [84] gave me pause. Honestly undecided at this point. – Teratix ₵ 06:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the Who's Who info in the first link, but the second is OK. Interestingly again an article about how unreliable it is as a publisher of facts. We'd never let a company article on the site with only 1 or 2 pieces from decades ago. I also worry that if the article stays, it will seem that Wikipedia is somehow validating the book, giving it the appearance of notability, and people might start using it as a source for the unverified information it contains. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the first source, the info starts in the fourth paragraph. – Teratix ₵ 01:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show the article unless I register for an account. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little green arrow which I can click on to see the full article without registering. The relevant parts of the article are The Ottawa press gallery of the London Times ... published a neat red volume called The Canadian Who's Who in May 1910. ... The sketches were quite brief, but Peterborough, with at least 40 entries, seemed well-represented. Obviously there's more than that, but I don't want to quote too much per WP:COPYQUOTE. The rest is an examination of the entries related to Peterborough and a short conclusion where the author compares reading the book to using the internet.

I absolutely agree that the book is unreliable and Wikipedia shouldn't be validating it – the solution to that is to rewrite the article using the new sources which show its unreliability. (Incidentally, the bulk of the current text has been contributed by a WP:SPA operating on the publisher's request. [85] It's been edited, but some of it is still there).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nomination. Nothing of substance is out there to support its notability. All we have supporting inclusion are variations of WP:ILIKEIT. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works...")[86][87] Lourdes 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are you saying that the first reference printed by University of British Columbia Press with extensive coverage of the book is the book "Canadian Who's Who" itself? Are you saying that the 400 words published about Canadian Who's Who in the national trivia book by Dundurn Press is "a brief mention"?!! What are you saying? And here's a third book review by Sources.com; it's a full page, before you say "a brief mention" again.[88] This is apart from the fact that The Chicago Manual of Style considers The Canadian Who's Who amongst their recommended list of biography sources ("...a starting point for writers, editors, and others involved in publishing ... they reflect the specific demands of different disciplines and the evolving traditions of writing, editing, and publishing."[89] To belabour the point, there are many citations to the book on scholar.google.com.[90] Lourdes 01:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources.com is clearly unreliable. See [91], organisations pay for their profile. – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NBOOK requires two book reviews, not a historical analysis. The review needs to be only an editorial review of contents, not of who owned it, what's the history etcetera. You're confusing GNG with NBOOK. For your benefit, NBOOK goes like this: "This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." Can you believe it, "bestseller lists"?! (The book is listed as amongst being most successful of all times in its category.)[92] I didn't make the guideline, but it works. Here's another book review from The Globe and Mail.[93] Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a reference work that was historically widely available in Canadian libraries, and is now available to libraries as an online subscription (making it hard to track current holdings). A cumulative index published in 1986 is still held by 131 libraries, not all in Canada and mostly major academic libraries, enough to make a reference book notable. For many years the work was published by the University of Toronto Press. References include an article written by a writer for a major Canadian newspaper (not a blog but an online copy of a 1998 newspaper column) as well as listings in books of Canadian reference sources for libraries. It has enough published sources combined with library holdings as a reference work to warrent an article, much as does the Marquis Who's Who article. Both publications use the same business model, which gives rise to the critical newspaper articles about them. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After extensive discussion, there is still no agreement whether to keep or delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sakharova

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Ms. Sakharova is currently the 2nd violinist of the acclaimed Arianna String Quartet and in this role recorded the opus 18 and middle period string quartets of Beethoven on the Centaur Records label. Jerry Dubins of Fanfare magazine hailed the recording of the middle quartets as "the greatest performances" of the quartets "in recorded history". This season, the quartet will record the late quartets to finish their complete Beethoven cycle. Also, Sakharova also served as the assistant concertmaster of the Alabama Symphony Orchestra for some time, as well as a member of Albany Symphony Orchestra. I think she passes WP:MUSICBIO #5 and #6 as such. I am also somewhat taken by surprise the the Arianna Quartet does not even have an article - they have been reviewed by NY Times, Chicago Tribune and more, and released numerous albums on major labels... But not every single subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines has its own article, and I think this will continue to be the case. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I just created an article for the Arianna String Quartet. But the comment above that “none” of the ensembles she was previously in have stand-alone articles was not even true when it was made. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't? Which of her ensembles have articles? Which do? Clearly I'm missing it so rather than offering vague assurance that they have articles, you can show them. At least we have a redirect target now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Albany Symphony Orchestra, where she was a member for some time, and Alabama Symphony Orchestra, where she served as assistant concertmaster.Zingarese talk · contribs 00:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Albany is not listed on her article. So we don't have "ensembles" we have a singular ensemble. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some references to the article (more could no doubt be found), and started a Discography section, to which the Arianna String Quartet recordings could be added. I think she meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, at least, and WP:GNG. (It's clear from the edit history that most of what was written by the subject of the article was deleted, and it has been rewritten by other editors since then, with information from cited sources.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. This isn't a very strong keep given some of the arguments, but I think the discussion has worked its way into a consensus that this is notable and worth keeping.

On a personal note, there are some good examples of editors earnestly working hard here, which always brightens my morning to see. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Saran Verma

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

Simply does not meet WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Padma Shri awardees are usually deemed to be notable people, having fulfilled the criteria of WP:ANYBIO point 1. There also exists a good number of sources in regional language sources - [94] and [95] in Rajasthan Patrika, [96] in News18 India, [97] by Aaj Tak has a section on him - all of which were published before he got the Padma Shri. His award was also covered in Rajasthan Patrika ([98]), in News18 India ([99]), in Dainik Jagran ([100]), in Oneindia ([101]). A farmer in the heartlands of rural India is not bound to get anymore press coverage from the mainstream English media in India, and therefore I believe this should stay. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. If the Padma Shri award does make a BLP notable on WP then draftity (as one source and one line is not enough; the article needs more work). If the Padma Shri award is not sufficient to make a BLP notable on WP then delete, as I cannot find any other sources that would prove GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Expanded. Probably should stay now. Jupitus Smart 19:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately the new text adds noting new of real notabililty beyond the Padma Shri prize (e.g. the guy is looking after 150 acres??). If getting this Padma Shri award is not a WP notable event (I have no idea how to assess that), then this is still a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure where anyone would think the 4th highest civilian award denotes notability. The usual criteria is the highest award, or multiple receipts of the 2nd highest award, neither of which apply to this individual.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tend to agree with you. The Padma Shri article says that as of 2017, 2,840 people have won the award. The List of Padma Shri award recipients (2010–2019) article implies that a lot of the winners have their own WP article, but scanning through, their notability seems justified. Britishfinance (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. The subject is not some award but a person. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rather, Strong keep per WP:GNG sources listed by Jupitus above. Clearly, Western-oriented editors need to invest some effort in clicking on Hindi news media links and using Google translate. I'm surprised that none of the delete !voting editors even bothered to take that effort. Lourdes 13:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did, and all I got were references to a rural farmer (in contrast to several other winners of the Padma Shri award, who have their own WP articles and are obviously notable). The only thing which has been presented on this AfD as being notable, is that he won the Padma Shri award. His criteria for winning the award (helping rural farming) throws up nothing additionally material to add to his notability (as far as I can see). If a farmer in the UK won a The Duke of Edinburgh's Award for improving crop yields and a few UK regional papers/one major paper covered it, it would get deleted. I am open-minded on this case (as I have shown above), but it would be great to get some facts (outside of him winning this award), and/or clarification that winning this award makes the subject inherently notable. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comments below. You need to use Google Translate. At least four of the sources provided by Jupitus are absolutely significant and not about the award. Lourdes 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't expect something out of the blue from a farmer in the rural hinterlands. He got the award for his contributions towards promoting the use of technology in farming and his activism in spreading the technical know-how to fellow farmers. Please read through WP:NOTINHERITED to understand why it is not applicable here, and why WP:ANYBIO specifically allows for winners of notable awards to have articles. The Padma Awards are handed out to a select few in various sectors, based on the nominations received from the different states of India. To be among the 112 Padma Awardees, from the 50,000 odd nominees in a country of over a billion plus people is an achievement in itself. As demonstrated above he has however been receiving press even before he got this award, fulfilling the criteria of continuous coverage. What however needs to be noted is that a farmer receiving the Padma Shri is not a matter of interest for the mainstream media in India as it does not have much news value, but I believe that Wikipedia should be above such biases. And as always, the other Indian editors who frequent WP:AFD are in hiding for fear of damaging their future WP:RFA's. Bah. Jupitus Smart 16:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is about the fact-base forWP:GNG. As I have asked above - is getting this award sufficient to make someone inherently notable on WP? If that is the case, then he is a keep, but I saw no evidence that this is so? Having read the WP article on this award (several times), there are concerns that not all awards have been merited. He could be the local plumber, but if he is getting mentioned in major sources, then he has notability. This guy is not. Do you see the concern? I can only go on what I can see. I (despite being called otherwise), have tried to translate sources but I get nothing significant. However, you have the knowledge of this area, so help us understand if this award should make someone inherently notable (maybe we could list it into the GNG guidelines), and/or, give us at least one major RS that nails his notability (I could not find any I would regard as a major RS). Sorry, but I hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would you consider as a major WP:RS. He has multiple articles about him on major newspapers (for context Dainik Bhaskar which has an article on him, sits on top of the List of newspapers in India by circulation as is Rajasthan Patrika which is 8th on the list). There is a clear case of WP:GNG being met even without me having to harp on the notability of being a Padma awardee. If you are insinuating at being mentioned in an English language publication that you may be familiar with for a newspaper to qualify as WP:RS, then I am afraid that I don't have any to show, apart from the few paragraphs on Outlook and India Today. Jupitus Smart 17:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all of the press is about him winning the award, so WP:BIO1E would apply.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I consider your comment of "all of the press is about him winning the award" stereotypical of the English-bias. I'm not calling it irresponsible, because you probably are writing this as you don't have Google Translate. If you click on the links provided by Jupitus, reliable sources all, at least four do not talk about the award and discuss the farmer at length. So please don't give such comments unless you've done some work investigating. This is an encyclopaedia where we have global readers (the maximum growth is from India) and such articles of notable personalities adds to the repertoire. You need to move out of the English bias in your future deletion discussions. Lourdes 02:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, back to the award, ("come on coola, not again!":)), some editors suggest that as it is the 4th highest civilian award that is not high enough ("The usual criteria is the highest award, or multiple receipts of the 2nd highest award.."), and that as there are 2840 recipients that is too many for it to be notable ie. hitting the WP:ANYBIO bar, i note that the CBE is the 3rd highest award British award and is generally seen as meeting notability, also 2840 recipients out of a population of over 1.2billion (1/400,000) looks significant to me, if there are enough sources covering Verma, then he also meets WP:BASIC, there is, so he does, keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As of right now, I am leaning towards calling this a Keep but am relisting in hopes of a more solid consensus... either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited the article to further draw out what I think are the notable items from Jupitus Smart's new references. Once half of me still feels that his noterity is at a state-level (not country). However, Jupitus has provided refs from a range of mainstream Indian RS-sources (which is getting to GNG), that span a range of years (not just at award time), and the Padma Shri award seems material, and Coolabahapple has made some good points. At this stage, I will leave it to others to make the final decision either way. Britishfinance (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the editing and appreciate the npov judgement about the individual. Lourdes 09:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: thanks for that - appreciated. Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Padma Shri by itself does not mean the subject is inherently notable. Compared to the top 3 civilian awards, this has been awarded to quite a lot of people. However, for people who are awarded Padma Shri, it is highly likely that they have attracted some amount of attention at local level (district/state)--DreamLinker (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some coverage in the regional Hindustan Times (Lucknow edition). I have some snippets below

[102] A digital harvest for reaping profits, Hindustan Times (Lucknow) 1 Jan 2016 Richa Srivastava. Snippet LUCKNOW: Ram Saran Verma, a leading farmer of Barabanki, wakes up to the beep of his mobile phone each day. The rates of the day’s green grocery market drop into his inbox and the planning for the day begins...Verma, recipient of multiple awards, including the prestigious Innovative Farmer Award, by the department of science and technology...A hi-tech farmer, Verma already has his own website, which is regularly updated with new experiments carried out by him in cultivation of banana, potato and tomato...It is for his innovative farming tricks that a number of other cultivators of the area too adopted his style and have grown manifold profits. The article is entirely about him. It is somewhat of an interview as well, but it definitely shows that he has received attention
[103] Hi-tech farmer gets a pat on the back, Hindustan Times (Lucknow) 2 Dec 2012 HT Correspondent Snippet LUCKNOW: Ram Saran Verma, a hi-tech farmer from Daulatpur, Barabanki whose innovative farming transformed his life, was felicitated by the Lucknow Management Association for his achievements. LMA conferred Verma with the ‘Creativity Innovation’ award at its convention on Saturday. From an ordinary kisan to a hi-tech farmer... The language is a bit PR-ish, but shows that he has received attention in 2012 as well.
[104] Fibre-rich red banana debuts in UP Hindustan Times (Lucknow) 29 Dec 2015 HT Correspondent Red banana, a rich source of protein, fibre and low on sugar content and grown mostly in south India, has been successfully cultivated in the state...said Ram Saran Verma, the farmer who experimented with the new variety. Saran planted about 1000 saplings of the new variety in Daultapur village of Barabanki way back in 2012.... Short article about a new type of banana cultivated by him

In Hindi there is quite a lot of coverage about him (like for example [105] from Economic Times Hindi). I am usually cautious with Hindi sources as many local newspapers are susceptible to sensational journalism. However, the Hindi sources linked in this AfD are the better and more reliable ones.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the above references. I am convinced by the fact that he has received coverage for an extended period of time. While some of the coverage (particularly in Hindi) seems to be a bit of marketing, it doesn't deny that he has genuinely received interest. The Padma Shri means his efforts have been recognised.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Padma Shri, which, if anything, passes WP:ANYBIO. In the year that the subject was given that award it was given to less than one in 12 million Indians, which makes in a much more exclusive award than, say, a British knighthood. It doesn't matter how many awards in India are even more exclusive. And it has been suggested above that his notability might only be state-wide rather than national. I don't accept that because this is a national award rather than a state award, but even if I did he would be notable in a state which would, if it was independent, be the seventh most populous country in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 27 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, defaulting to the best redirect target, BeOS#Products using BeOS. bd2412 T 15:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tunetracker Radio Automation

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Most, if not all of the potential sources (Google) are clearly not independent. For example 1 is written like an advertisement; fast, lightweight, and stable, like the commercial BeOS operating system it was fashioned after is what this page describes the radio software as. There is also not a wide pool of any kind of source available; even on the first page of the google search, two copies of the wikipedia page on wikivisually and revolvy are shown as the 6th and 4th result respectively. Even if some suitable sources were found from Google, there won't be enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mentions of this thing that are 1. reliable sources or 2. not written like advertisements. I think this is the closest thing, but that's not good. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other sources I found so far: Radio World 2002 review [106]; Computer Music magazine (January 2005) article about internet radio stations: pp. 68-71 are mostly devoted to TuneTracker, but there are extensive quotes of author of said application. There may be more of this kind of coverage in computer music related published magazines frome the early 2000s. I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay. A proposal: merge into BeOS#Products_using_BeOS? Given your sources, I'm leaning away from removing this material from the wiki, but I still don't know that it merits its own article. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article already mentions this application, so this may be a viable target. I will look for other sources, but I don´t think I will find more (BeNews could provide some short news - nothing to improve notability; there may be a review in some BeOS centered magazine, but it will be next to impossible to find relevant scans on the net). Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the archived website of the company behind this application is short notice about column on byte.com. Although that page is no longer accessible, author of BeOS related column (Scot Hacker) has his articles on his own webpage: [107] and archived version is also on archive.org [108]. Looks like solid source for notability. Pavlor (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat weak keep as there are good RS about this application, but not in the quantity I would like. Pavlor (talk) 15:07, 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) 12:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference that I can find to his product is from a site called Radio World (an industry trade journal notable enough to have its own WP article). However in Radio World's 2018 review of radio systems [109] it doesn't list Tunetracker as a major product (and it lists several). In any of the reviews on Radio World about Tunetracker, I don't see anything saying that it is an important or an industry leading product. Outside of Radio World, the coverage drops off to very obscure sources. Article has been effectively unreferenced for several years now – author left WP after creating the article – and the only two links are SPAM to its own website. This is PROMO of a non-notable product, making unsubstantiated claims, that fails any basic WP:GNG test. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the sources I mentioned above (Computer Music magazine, byte.com)? Pavlor (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could not find any link to them? Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Computer Music magazine (January 2005, pp 68-71) [110], byte.com [111]. Pavlor (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Pavlor. The Byte reference is from 2001 and there is no indication that Tunertracker was a leading product in the sector at that time? The article on page 68–71 of the 2005 Computer Music Magazine is about the online radio space in general, and lists a range of software programs, of which Tunetracker is one? While nobody denies the Tunetracker products existed, the issue is whether they are notable. I think that Tunetracker is not notable now, but I am not sure Tunetracker was even particularly notable in 2001-05, outside of being one of number of software products in this area? thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, or, to be gracious, Detonate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lourdes 13:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Colts Neck mansion killings

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

Event without lasting notability, all coverage is from within two weeks of the event in November 2018. Per the relevant notability guideline WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." DePROD by Necrothesp who suggested that a multiple homicide should be taken to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now - local and state level coverage continuing. Was a national level story (e.g. CNN had an item a month ago). Nj.com ranks this as the biggest NJ crime story of 2018 - [112]. If coverage goes dormant, it might not be notable, but given continuing coverage this 2.5 month old event is still RAPIDish.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Some coverage from this month [113]. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage. Notable.BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and revisit after the trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. I don't understand !votes of "keep for now". What does that mean? If it turns out that this isn't notable after all, we should delete it? That's the world on its head. At this point, this is just another murder case. Sure, it was gruesome (two children among the victims) and all that, but that doesn't translate into notability. For events like this, it has to be shown that there is lasting coverage (like the Manson murders), which for an event that happened last November is for the moment impossible to say, or that it influences policy/laws, which for the same reason is impossible to say at this point (but unlikely). Sure, there will be some coverage again when this goes to trial, but that's also routine. Such coverage can be found for any murder, anywhere in the world (although this kind of rash creation of articles seems to be limited to US crimes...), we cannot cover every single murder ever committed and we should not. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear-cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, sourced only to news reports rather than secondary sources. I share Randykitty's bemusement about the "keep" votes above. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Single murders may well not be notable. Multiple murders almost invariably are. Frankly, I find it a rather worrying comment on American society that the murder of four people is treated in such a blasé fashion. I'm not sure this would be the case in any other Western country. I don't think that an article on such a multiple murder in my country would ever be deleted or that the crime would be considered not to be of lasting notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a double murder in your (and my) country was deleted with unanimous support just this month. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murders generate a flurry of coverage just after they happen (especially if there's not much esle happening right at that moment) and then again a bit when it goes to trial. Then perhaps something in a local newspaper on an anniversary or so. That's not notability. Really notable murders, like Ted Bundy's or Charles Manson's are very rare. It is easy in the excitement of the moment to get carried away and find something extremely important, but some time later something else comes up and the whole thing gets forgotten. Just this morning I read a headline about a mother and her 4 children being murdered. It wa not in the US, but I doubt that we have an article on it, nor should we: gruesome as this crime is, reality is that it'll be forgotten next week. This is why WP should not have articles on current events like this, because it is way too soon to judge whether there's any lasting impact. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two people, not four! An analogy to this one would be the White House Farm murders. I don't think anyone would consider deleting that article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several books have been published about the White House Farm murders. If that happens for the Colts Neck mansion killings then of course we can have an article, but it hasn't happened yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING and the WP10YT. See also WP:RECENTISM of which this appears to be a textbook example. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the case was not treated by media like a ROUTINE murder. The Washington Post doesn't cover routine murders in the Garden State A N.J. family is dead, a mansion is burned — and a sibling is charged with murder. People Magazine : A Brother's Betrayal? How a Torched N.J. Mansion Led Police to a Slain Family and a Shocking Arrest, mansions, millions, greed, for whatever reason the story has legs Star Ledger: Colts Neck killings: Caneiro brothers' once-thriving tech business showed signs of slowing down. Point is that this looks notable because of the WP:SIGCOV it has gotten.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 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 delete. Lourdes 11:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K Varghese

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO. Independent sources are all passing mentions, not sources about him but about events where he was. Fram (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, most likely a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text in the article would have him fail WP:BIO (e.g. being the treasurer of a church group); nothing I can see that would support WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Yet another vanity affair without any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Szanto

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

fails WP:NFOOTY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Can't find anything showing he was signed to Portland or Accrington, let alone played a game for them. Giant Snowman 10:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-pro (at best) footballer which could be a hoax or at least lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources, and doesn't pass NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find evidence that he played for Kitsap Pumas and Burscough, but absolutely nothing to suggest that he played for Portland or Accrington. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:17, 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. Consensus to keep. No reason the delete for copyvio reasons because that was fixed. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 22:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Palladino

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

While a couple of sources do say he was "pioneering," none of them have anything to say about him that constitutes significant coverage or are able to nod to what was pioneering about his work. The only source of any length seems to be the obit in what I'm not sure is even the main news outlet for his locality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more citations (including multiple books) and updated explaining why he's a pioneer (with citations). This was my first new Wiki page - didn't realize it'd get flagged so quickly. Thanks for the input. My apologizes if I didn't update this "talk" thread correctly –ActAudio (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient citations to establish notability a a recording engineer. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need to do some more research before making a definitive choice, but although the article currently has problems with copyright issues and OR, it looks like it might be salvageable. Just looking through back copies of Billboard, many of the biographical claims can be corroborated: that Mr. Palladino started out at Radio Recorders [114]; that he was promoted to album producer at Capitol Records in 1956 [115]; that he was a pioneer in the use of Ampex recording tape [116] and was responsible for developing Capitol's "duophonic sound" system [117] and twin pack tape cartridges [118]; that he became part of Capitol's A&R team [119] and was promoted to A&R director in 1976 [120]. And although the Granata book and Sound on Sound articles are mostly primary sources as interviews conducted with Mr. Palladino, they confirm that he did work with Frank Sinatra on some of his most important records of the 1950s. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the copyright issue - I did a sloppy job writing this initially (I'm still new to writing articles vs just doing editing). I already re-wrote some of that flagged information more carefully and with new citations. Initially it was just referencing his obituary). So, it's probably ok at this point to just delete those flagged sections. Actaudio (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it would be good if the copyright issue on the page could be sorted out and removed, particularly as it's essentially just a duplicate of the rest of the article. But while it's still there, it's difficult to clean up the article because some of the references are in that section and we're not supposed to alter anything. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see it in any copyright discussion. Is there anything I can do to help move this along? Rewrite on a temp page or would that complicate things more? Actaudio (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC and has coverage in reliable sources such as Billboard and therefore deserves a place in Wikipedia and the concerns about copyvio are being addressed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: I've rewritten the article below the copyvio warning and added the sources I found above. It's still a bit of a mess, with repeated citations, but that's because they're also included in the blanked section under copyvio, and we're not allowed to touch that bit. Once that issue is sorted out, the page can be tided up, but I think there are enough reliable sources now to keep the rewritten part of the article as it stands and pass WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: copyvio issues have been addressed, citations have been sorted out. Richard3120 (talk) 14:27, 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. Sandstein 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Unlimited

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable Vmavanti (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Just a self-funded jazz band playing old hits at local venues on the south coast of England. What they do is admirable, but nowhere near notable enough for an encyclopedia. Even the one reference in the article has been badly archived and makes no mention of the band, so there are no independent sources whatsoever. Richard3120 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I gave a delete view in the 2010 AfD which closed without consensus (though with no arguments towards retention). Looking for sources again, I still see nothing better than passing local coverage too insubstantial for the WP:NORG criteria (former or current) for an article in its own right. A brief mention in Bournemouth#Culture might be an option, but the sources feel too light to sustain that alternative. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to be of local interest only, perhaps unlike Loose Tubes, which the article compares it to. Vmavanti (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavanti: yes, Loose Tubes did actually garner some significant national media attention at the time, unlike this band. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. There is not a single sold RS to support notability on this band. The single reference in the article is junk (including archive reference) and makes no reference to the band anymore. This is a non-notable local bank. Definately not even close to being notable for Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...it's a bank? But a very entertaining bank.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mishanin

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

Lack of notability. Most sources zare about his company; cruchbase entry is simply a directory-type listing, notanything substantive. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just redirect to Bright Box, although I haven't followed up to confirm if Bright Box is notable either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:21, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Shoygu

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

"She is the youngest daughter of the Minister of Defence of Russian Federation Sergei Shoygu" - WP:NOTTEMPORARY. In the Russian Wikipedia article was deleted by notability criteria. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 02:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and very (very) promotional. I have a feeling that without salting, we will be seeing this article again. Britishfinance (talk) 22:41, 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. Sandstein 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frosted Faces Foundation

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

I can't find any significant coverage - passing mentions in news articles about animals they've rescued, but nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely this is a good cause, but it's not necessarily a good fit for Wikipedia. Per nom, I found a few local interest stories, but the not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. Grayfell (talk) 04:45, 31 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) 00:53, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Academy of Honor

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

What is the notability of this? I've never heard of it, there's no inherent reason why it should be considered notable--it's just a group of people selected by its own members, with some local newspaper and TV stations reporting on it. The only time it gets called something, as far as I know, is here, "prestigious"--but of course anything involving Nick Saban is going to be prestigious. Well, Roll Tide and all that, but this isn't notable. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has gotten some non-local RS news coverage, e.g. Chicago Tribune (paywall), the New York Times, NPR, and (this is the largest amount of in-depth coverage I could find) the New York Times again. However, most (but not all) of this coverage is just "Famous person X was inducted into the Academy today". IntoThinAir (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has the backing of legislature and the refs above are enough for notability. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources definitely do not provide enough coverage on the academy itself to pass - especially given that it needs to satisfy WP:NORG. Additionally, "it has the backing of legislature" is a ridiculous reasoning - not everything that has a state's support automatically has notability. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it does very little to do it. That said, it's an impressive list, so I wouldn't be shocked if someone writing about them has covered the academy in some decent detail. Hopefully a more in-depth sweep by me tomorrow might find some more (or not) and let me finish casting a !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:44, 21 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. Conceding a consensus to delete... it's pretty weak. So I'm calling this a soft delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Smith

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Former county judge and district attorney. GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure - He might have notability by way of that Kyzer matter, which seems to have plenty of coverage. I'll look into this and report back. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice if nationalized sources about the subject are found. It appears that the subject had a productive 14-year career (described here: https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20131101/tuscaloosa-district-attorney-tommy-smith-retires-lyn-head-sworn-in), but there is not the nationalization of coverage that the community generally expects of a locally-elected official. --Enos733 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If his coverage is solely from his involvement in the Kyzer case. Wouldn't it be a case of WP:BLP1E? Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article was also eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. MER-C 20:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Xiang

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

Promotional article stuffed with promotional links (in Chinese). As a scholar fails WP:PROFESSORTEST. As a writer, let' see: the first 2 books are not even his field. (Writing a book about "Utility Machine Electrical Control Line" at age 14?) Books 3–8 were self-published. Not a single book has a WorldCat entry (one can verify this by clicking on their ISBN numbers). Timmyshin (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The sources, SEC [121], Google Books [122], and WorldCat [123] meet WP:GNG.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 123Aristotle (talk • contribs). [reply]

How does he meet GNG? The SEC link only mentions his name as a registrant, the Google Books link does not mention his name at all, and the Worldcat link simply tells us that 2 libraries in China hold a book which lists him as the 3rd author. Timmyshin (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. Additionally, the editing history of the article creator (just enough small edits to reach autoconfirmed, then dropping 2 fully-formatted articles into mainspace) invites further scrutiny. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakazaka You may be pleased to know that the article creator User:Coqja'uv has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timmyshin, thanks for the update. Bakazaka (talk) 17:26, 19 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) 02:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick

AfDs for this article:

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

Dylan Geick does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for an article and was deleted previously for that reason. I am moving that it be deleted again. Subsequent to the first deletion, Dylan left the Columbia University wrestling team, so if anything notability has decreased. Please note that his book of poems was self-published using Blurb, and there are widespread claims that a significant portion of his social media following was purchased. Omaharodeo (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)and[reply]

Super Keep (Author) He did not leave the Columbia wrestling team he took a gap year.. you can see by the sometimes 500 views a day of his wiki page that he has a strong following as a subject.. where is your evidence that his followers on social media were purchased.. His poetry has been written about by the New York Times.. there has been wider media coverage since the first article of him was deleted after having been nominated for damnation via an isp address then proxied into prosecution... By the way thanks for abreasting me of this nomination it is so very gentlemanly of you not to do so. ... Williamsdoritios (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:POPULARPAGE, pageview stats are not a reason to keep an article (in addition to being easily gamed). There has been no significant coverage of the subject's self-published poetry in the New York Times or anywhere else that I can find. Just context (not centrally relevant), but claims that the subject's social media following has been purchased are so widespread that he has repeatedly mentioned them himself. Omaharodeo (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but must point out that it is impossible for notability to decrease. Reliable sources, which are the basis of notability, do not unwrite themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that there has been an article published about the subject in the Chicago Tribune since the last AfD discussion, so it is possible that notability has increased. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take your points. To the extent there has been any coverage, it has been mostly about the subject being a gay athlete, so one idea would be merging into List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople. The particular article you mention is local coverage (subject is from Chicago) that does not seem to establish notability per WP:NCOLLATH. Omaharodeo (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just ftr, that article was published in the Lake County News-Sun which is a "regional newspaper based in Gurnee, Illinois." It appears on the Tribune domain because of how Tronc organizes regional newspaper content. Omaharodeo (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a New York Times aricle for Heaven's sake [124]Williamsdoritios (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a column, not an article. One notable difference is that the information conveyed is mostly unverified. Additionally, this particular column (Up Next) is only included in the local edition of the Times because the subjects are not of national importance. The vast majority of Up Next column subjects do not have standalone articles on Wikipedia. Omaharodeo (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its national you were able to read it..Its international.. you break away parts of the story and try to destroy it but all put together he is notable and only getting more notable. Further to say the rest of most of all the rest of the citations are gay athlete things is to denigrate that as well....(this is local this is gay).. The New York Times is probably the most notable newspaper in the United States and they have fact checkers and all national stories are local in originWilliamsdoritios (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:RSP, Wikipedia policy does distinguish between types of Times writing in evaluating reliability. The Up Next column (not article) in the local edition of the Times is more analogous to their wedding announcements -- which also appear on nytimes.com but are purchased and minimally fact-checked -- than to a bonafide news article. Again, the vast majority of Up Next subjects do not have standalone Wikipedia pages. These columns (not articles) are publicist-arranged, not rigorously fact-checked, and appear only in the local edition of the paper. You may be right that the subject is "only getting more notable", but that just means this is WP:TOOSOON. Omaharodeo (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may have been too soon then but its not too soon nowWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (stike through, see final comment in this thread). Obviously this article needs some work, which I'm starting on. But if you look at the sources, he meets GNG. Articles solely focusing on the subject appear in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Tribune (again), the Chicago Tribune (a third time), Outsports, the Up Next section of the NYT, Socialite Life, Chicago Pride, and others. --Kbabej (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, he did not appear in the Chicago Tribune; he appeared in various regional papers focused on the suburbs that do not seem to establish notability per WP:NCOLLATH. They are on the Tribune domain because of how Tronc organizes local content. Omaharodeo (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know (re: Chicago Tribune). But, to be fair, is it WP:NCOLLATH? It isn't statistics of plays they're reporting. It's coverage based on him coming out and being an out athlete. --Kbabej (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good point, it's a mix of WP:NCOLLATH and WP:BLP1E. Omaharodeo (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it BLP1E when you add the coming out, poetry, and influencer stuff together? That seems like three separate areas of coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry has no significant coverage that I have been able to find; did you find any? The book was a self-published thing that anyone can make using a for-pay website. I'm not sure how to quantify the "influencer" stuff, but there is no reliable coverage of it, just spammy blogs and so forth right? I appreciate this good-faith discussion. Omaharodeo (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of good faith discussions, I'm becoming more convinced while talking with you about a neutral vote at this point. As for quantifying the influencer stuff, there's the article at Socialite Life, which has been used a total of 11 times on WP, not counting this article. There's an article on Queerty talking about his fans, and the Lake-County News Sun calls him an "internet celebrity." So there's not a ton there, but still a some coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your characterization -- some coverage exists, however dicey. I went through the Socialite Life and Queerty links and wow they seem pretty brutal as sources. They are primarily a bunch of links to the subject's Instagram posts with a few sentences indicating he is a gay wrestler. The Lake-County News Sun article you cite seems much closer, but then that's hyper hyper hyper local. Omaharodeo (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the arguments below, the fact that the "Chicago Tribune" articles were in fact regional news (my fault on that one), and the possibility of inflated followers, I am striking my above keep vote. --Kbabej (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Statement on the Deletion of Dylan Geick from Max LaSalle (Instagram: @realmaxlasalle twitter: @realmaxlasalle): Dylan Geick's Wikipedia page should not be deleted. Why? Because he is a official public figure. He has tons of followers on Instagram and lots of subscribers on YouTube. He receives hundreds of view on his Wikipedia page (not anymore sense it's going into deletion). He also was and I believe he is still a wrestler that has a amazing run in the wrestling career and he is also a big public figure in the LGBT community. Why would we want to delete his page. There is just simply no reason and no true un-biased facts into why his Wikipedia page should be deleted. 2600:8800:2F08:7700:A1DF:F6BE:3169:5264 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Max LaSalle[reply]

Sorry, who are you and how did you find out about this? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What official grants the status of an "official public figure"? And the accusation of bias is unfounded. I can only believe that you mean bias against gay people, but, in my experience, gay people are not underrepresented on Wikipedia in the way that other groups who are disadvantaged in the Anglophone West certainly are. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This article exists because an iNfLuEnceR is trying to get verified on instagram. He’s on his Snapchat begging people to come here and say keep. This person is a fake author, a fake wrestler, a fake student, and buys fake followers. What has he done other than come out as gay... take his shirt off on ig? Is wiki this easy to manipulate? I’m sorry I don’t know the lingo. I tried to do the right format. 2600:1012:B02D:536B:54B1:EBBA:B499:9007 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Andrew Williams[reply]

Question? Also who are you and where did you hear about this? Please elaborate on snapchatWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also WP:PRODded article Early Works: A Collection of Poetry created by User:MarkZusab on 2019-01-29 and PRODded by User:Omaharodeo a couple of hours later. --Closeapple (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree Early Works: A Collection of Poetry should be deleted. It has not received any substantial coverage. The section in the subject's article is enough. --Kbabej (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note: I created Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and have merged the current content into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the poetry book article should be deleted because the mention on his own wiki page is enough... Williamsdoritios (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)..[reply]

Comment Note: I created Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and have merged the current content into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of us have now spent significant time trying to improve this article, and I am more convinced than ever that it should be deleted (for the second time). It is plainly true that the subject's wrestling achievements and writing achievements are not notable. Beyond that, all we have is gossip about the subject's romantic life and social media follower counts (which are widely alleged to be inflated). The key sources are press releases and opinion columns which were not rigorously fact-checked. Omaharodeo (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may have tried to improve the article but you have also removed multiple details, demanded that inline citations make the point of every detail of the article on the spot where the details are are. As there are parts of the article where the cittaion is listed further down as you have rearranged the article like a game of three card monte and then removed the notations for being redundant when trying to reprove the factual flow. This is the case with the Geick Keioch relationship you are so relentless I just left it alone... You have manicured every word here I guess you feel if you can deneuter every last detail you can prove it is non-notable you know whatever.. The truth is he has a large social media presence. He is visibly involved in activism at this point and his story has been covered by multiple national outlets which you are intent on proving are not actually that. Williamsdoritios (talk) 09:55, 5 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) 00:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject doesn't appear to meet the various notability criteria, and I also note an issue where it seems the subject is canvassing off-Wikipedia for support to keep his page. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:NoCOBOL it is your choice and right to vote for deletion, however, the fact that there are two seemingly ridiculously worded vote summaries in the last round which mention instagram does not mean tbe subject is canvassing off wikipedia. The internet is a fluid place there are many people who follow the subject on social media some of those people know how to google and wikipedia is a huge site and many people wind up here. Of the two votes which mention offsite connections one is for keep and one is for delete.Williamsdoritios (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You seem to be well connected with the subject. Could you tell us whether or not they have mentioned this deletion discussion in any way, perhaps in a way that could be construed as canvassing, perhaps not. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Listen you mean well abreasted not well connected and I have not seen or heard of any such thing. Further people are free beings that can mention all they want and the people who are mentioning those sites don't seem to be writing their arguements at a very high level. Personally I am really tired of all this nonsense blasted nonsense the internet is fluid. Williamsdoritios (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I meant what I said. Also, you can indent your posts with : or * -- NoCOBOL (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “College wrestler is gay” is not enough to meet notability standards no matter how popular he may be on the Internet. This is too soon. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm done here . I leave his page to its fate whatever that maybe. If he is too soon in the vwords of Morrissey How Soon is Now Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sufficient coverage has not been shown to satisfy the general notability guideline. There just seem to be a few human interest stories in local newspapers, or the local pages of regional newspapers. What happens on "social media" (a misnomer if ever I saw one) is irrelevant to Wikipedia notability, which depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a page is systematically destructured of course it reads as non-notable.. I will say this though the fact that the subject jumps from one endeavor to the other does reduce the notability thread.Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment was in no way based on the current state of the article, but on the totality of reliable sources that have been presented or that I can find myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article about a wannabe Instagram influencer, college athlete and self-published author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent time tidying up this discussion for indentations and to clarify which are comment points so that it can be read easily (I have not touched any actual text). There is just not enough to confirm GNG. There are bits and pieces, but nothing that you can definitively point to. Perhaps this will change in the future and he will increase notability, but more would be required in terms of significant independent WP:RS discussing him. If a new article re-appears with no improvement in RS, it should be speedily deleted. Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tribune coverage is not actually from Chicago Tribune but local sources that fall under WP:YOUNGATH. NY Times coverage is not the type of significant coverage that meets WP:GNG--it's the "Up Next" section. Canvassing or not, the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. agtx 21:42, 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.

[ASI-1] Singh, Kumar Suresh (1998). "Rudramurti+Ahir" People of India. Anthropological Survey of India. ISBN 9788171547661. Retrieved 5 February 2019. {{cite book}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help)

[Singh-2] Singh, K. S. (1998). Rajasthan. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 9788171547661. Retrieved 5 February 2019.

[3] ttps://caravanmagazine.in/politics/shivam-shankar-singh-as-told-to-bjp-data

[4] ttp://time.com/5512032/whatsapp-india-election-2019/

[5] ttps://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/WhatsApp-grapples-with-outsized-influence-ahead-of-Asia-polls

[6] ttps://penguin.co.in/book/politics/how-to-win-an-indian-election/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]