Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Vandenberg

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

This non-notable subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Source searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. No significant coverage in said sources appears to exist. Additionally, the article is entirely dependent upon primary and unreliable sources, which do not confer notability. Primary sources found in searches also do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a reference from the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History a respected encyclopedia edited by multiple scholars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability. Furthermore, multiple sources are required to establish notability, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is not a primary source. We have never acceptaed that the published of a book can be used to determine if it is primary or secondary. With books, one needs to look at the whole nature of the production. This is a book with listed authors who are respected scholars in the field and you cannot reclassify it as a primary source just because of who the publisher is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree about the independence of the source. However, as stated above, multiple sources are required to establish notability, not just one. From source searches, it just doesn't seem that the subject has received any coverage that is not somehow affiliated with the LDS church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm leery about considering sources that are ultimately published by the organization as reliable secondary sources in situations like this. They can definitely be useful when adding biographical details after notability is established but I don't particularly believe that these sources make a good case for notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When your job is your notability yet we can’t get any independent sources about you then are you really notable? Trillfendi (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal

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

Non-notable subject. In fact, seems to only exist as an act of self-promotion by a now-banned user. PepperBeast (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Although google books turns many results, most, if not all, self-published. Only one news report mention in a local newspaper. Sources used in the article unverifiable. Funny though, one sources used is actually a letter to the editor of a newspaper by this Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal ;) Clear self-promotion. Article created by the subject himself. Recently blocked for book-spamming. AhmadLX (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G12 - almost entirely a copyvio - earwig. If someone does a major cleanup - and if his webpage is correct regarding amount of publications - book publication list - he might quite possibly be notable per WP:NAUTHOR. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NAUTHOR wouldn't apply even then: 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors? → no. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? → No. 3. Created well-known work, with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? → No. 4.The person's work won significant critical attention? → No. AhmadLX (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a mere publication list doesn't establish NAUTHOR - however when someone has authored 36 books over 62 years - it is quite possible. Possible - not certain. Icewhiz (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:01, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Linux

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There is a very, very brief mention in Linux Today, but that's the only third-party source I could find, and is lacking in depth and is likely just a press release blurb more than anything. The article does have a DistroWatch listing, but given that you can simply buy a DistroWatch listing, that doesn't help show notability. Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not have notability, its a hobby project. Editor-1 (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only find a very small mention in MakeUseOf; this and the Linux Today mention isn't enough to pass GNG or NSOFT. Sunmist (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Politycki

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

Almost entirely unsourced, except the subject's personal website, a national library catalogue, two YouTube links to a short video by the subject and a reading by the subject. A Google search only gives one possible reliable secondary source on him by a local German newspaper: [1], so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Beyond the fluff, the author does not qualify for WP:AUTHOR and fails WP:ANYBIO having won two minor prizes and being long-listed for the Independent Foreign Fiction Prize once. It doesn't help that all of the contributions to the article were from three SPAs (Jabel2150, Corvuslibri, 85.176.22.138). MarkH21 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC),[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree about the exceptions to sourcing. This BLP article has one source about one book. Sourcing through the "External links" is inappropriate, not reliable, and IMDb is a user-generated site. If someone wants to keep all the apparent original research then "prove it" with BLP acceptable sources. The "Five pillars includes "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I am finding other sources on German websites but I can't tell how material they are: NDR.de, Stern.de. I can't find anything that would be a solid RS on English sources. He seems to have more than one published work (and even his "authority control" is showing up links) which can imply notability. Untimately we should not have a BLP on WP with effectively no references (the referernce is a link to one of his books); therefore, at minimum, we should draftify. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 15 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) 03:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think it needs more source(s) to confirm it in an adequate credit. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:59, 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. czar 04:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guenter Klose

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

Not very convincing claim of notability. 2 references but both offline, and I doubt that they say much about him. Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, nor WP:ACADEMIC. MarkH21 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 2 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) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no significant independent coverage establishing notability. Promotional tone. Colin M (talk) 03:23, 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilhéa Peillard

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

Besides the fact that all but 1 or 2 of these references are to her modeling agencies aka primary sources, even though she won the Elite Model Look contest years ago, she doesn’t meet NMODEL. Don’t let the advertisement tone of this article fool you. She’s only done about 11 jobs in 6 years and none of them notable. There are not sources out there to substantiate notability. Trillfendi (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMODEL and also any form of GNG. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 22 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) DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard de Beer

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

De Beer has not played a regular season game for a professional sports team (fails WP:GRIDIRON), was a non-notable college offensive tackle who was not drafted (fails WP:NCOLLATH), and is otherwise a non-notable person (fails WP:GNG).

All of the mentions of him in the news fall into routine pieces about a person trying to make it in professional sports. The only possible exception I found is this ESPN article. I would argue that his South African roots and previous discus/track experience does not alone make him notable. These items would only become relevant if he plays a professional game, thus adding him to a small list of unique NFL players with this background. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination. MarkH21 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to Keep after being shown to meet WP:GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For disclosure, I promoted this at AfC. I agree De Beer does not qualify under WP:GRIDIRON, however, believe he has obtained WP:SIGCOV of a non WP:ROUTINE nature in WP:RS spanning a period of years and, therefore, meets the WP:GNG. Specifically:

Gartland, Dan (October 17, 2017). "Arizona's 320-Pound Discus Champion Lineman Wants to Be a Punter". Sports Illustrated.
Bonagura, Kyle (November 3, 2017). "Gerhard de Beer, Arizona's 315-pound, discus-throwing wanna-be punter". ESPN.
"The big meneer from Pretoria on the road to NFL stardom". The Citizen. May 2, 2018.
Feltham, Luke (May 4, 2018). "Meet Gerhard De Beer, SA's aspiring NFL star". Mail & Guardian.
Gaughan, Mark (May 27, 2018). "Bills rookie tackle Gerhard de Beer has Olympic-sized natural talent". Buffalo News.
Rodak, Mike (February 1, 2018). "Gerhard de Beer continúa su transición del disco al fútbol americano". ESPN.
Roth, Leo (August 2, 2018). "Bills rookie guard Gerhard de Beer ate 8,000 calories per day to make his college team". Democrat & Chronicle.

Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, while I appreciate that he has appeared in some articles over about a year period, all of the one's you point to are routine profiles of a college athlete about his pursuit to the NFL. It really comes down to the question "does someone become notable for trying to get to the NFL just because they come from a country that doesn't routinely provide NFL players?" (in this case South Africa). In my opinion, until he makes it to the NFL, he is just another aspiring college athlete with a somewhat unique background. For every aspiring professional athlete that makes it, there are hundreds who don't, a lot of whom have coverage about their pursuit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Two of the above articles are from South African newspapers, which do not routinely profile American football players. Profiles in the U.S. newspapers are not draft season articles and are therefore also, in my opinion, not routine for the type of graduating college player profiles we typically see. All of the articles are deep biographical treatments and, in that sense, I think are also non-routine for the type of college-to-pros coverage we typically see which is usually limited to draft round predictions, and so forth. Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is a strange mistress. First, the article doesn't violate any policy that I can see/ And no, the notability is not achieved through being an active NFL player because he hasn't done that yet. Normally, notability is not achieved by being on the practice squad. Most college football players are not notable either. What makes this player notable? A clear pass of WP:GNG does it for me. For some reason--for whatever reason or reasons--there is significant coverage of the individual in reliable third party news sources. Is it because his last name is "de Beer" and that makes people joke about "de Brewski" ?? Doesn't matter... what matters is the coverage is there. We as editors do not set out to "choose" what is notable or "use our vast wisdom" to deem something notable or "get to decide" because that's personal preference (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jesus Christ. “Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game” is the first rule of NGRIDIRON and he couldn’t even manage to do that. “He’s South African” is not notability! You can have all the “coverage” in the world but you have to actually play the goddamn sport professionally. Trillfendi (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You can have all the “coverage” in the world but you have to actually play the goddamn sport professionally." - NGRIDIRON is a notability test for subjects who fail the GNG. A person who had "all the coverage in the world" but never played the sport professionally would indeed qualify for an article under the General Notability Guidelines. Conversely, a subject who had played the sport professionally but was only mentioned once in a 1932 issue of the Des Moines Register would fail the GNG but qualify under NGRIDIRON. Chetsford (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General notability for not even playing his sport? For a potential career? Makes no sense. General notability still has to be for something. File this one under WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our general notability guidelines (WP:BASIC) say that: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[ and independent of the subject. That's the only requirement of GNG; personal or professional success is not a requirement under our general notability guidelines. Whether or not it makes sense, that's our policy. Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABELINCOLN never played football professionally either, but that's no reason to delete the article about him. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABELINCOLN is simply an opinion... dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

missing your point... ??? What do you mean by that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a good amount of discussion above about WP:ROUTINE but it does not apply here. WP:ROUTINE is a part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and the subject here is not an event but a person -- therefore we go to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and its sub-guideline WP:BASIC.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:GNG and prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH. Significant coverage in national media outlets like Sports Illustratedand ESPN.com, as well as international coverage in South Africa. This type of coverage is not even remotely WP:ROUTINE. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. In addition, he very likely meets WP:NCOLLATH #3, too, due to the national and international media attention he has received. I also want to note that the profanity in Trillfendi's "Delete" vote is completely unnecessary and is very much not appreciated. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree there is no place for profanity in this discussion per WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS. It doesn't help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lass

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

not having enough references to qualify for an article, lacking wp:Bio Shringhringshring (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the edit history, there appears to have been a conflict of interest during the creation of the article, but more relevantly the individual does not meet notability criteria; as far as I can tell, he has won no awards, and the independent coverage of him consists solely of his name being mentioned in passing when discussing a piece of music or a musical event. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Seems to also fail WP:GNG. Looking in the history, much of the content on the page has been unsourced since 2013 and what is left is either deadlinks or his own bio. The article also makes claims of notability that I cannot find sources for. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per the improvements to the article by Shaidar cuebiyar and RebeccaGreen. Wording could still be worked on but it has been improved to show he pass our notability crtieria now. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent about an hour looking into this guy, and I can't substantiate any of his claims to the level that he would meet notability guidelines. He say he's had a gold album, but I can't find any evidence of that. He says his album charted on the NAV chart, but that was a New Age Voices magazine list which doesn't qualify under WP:Chart. I also can't find any evidence of him being nominated for a Grammy or an ARIA, despite his claims. The page language is very similar to the language on his website. ManicSpider (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per NoCOBOL.Tamsier (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not established. Fails WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO. I have added content and references which support claims of regular TV appearances, at least nine albums (including a US release), reviews of performances/albums, he has won eight consecutive Mo Awards (Australian national awards for live entertainment).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised by the lack of sources considering how ubiquitous he once was. Surely 8 Mos is enough for anyone. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" (has released on EMI, WEA, Fanfare Records, among others), and #8 "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" (8 years of Mo Awards, now referenced, thanks to shaidar cuebiyar ). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Releasing albums and or charting are not notability especially if you have no independent reliable sources to back you up! Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No independent reliable sources? I beg to differ, in what way are the following not reliable: 1. AllMusic review of ninth album. 2. Eight consecutive Mo Awards. 3. Canberra Times reviews. 4. The Sydney Morning Herald reviews. 5. The Age review?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO There are enough referenced, reputable external resources. I believe article can be cleaned up a bit more though. Equine-man (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO. Refs looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added to page during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both sides have been talking in generalities without enough discussion of specific sources. MRRaja001 and RebeccaGreen mentioned the existence of additional news articles but failed to present any actual links. Meanwhile the delete side has simply asserted lack of WP:SIGCOV even though there are several trustworthy news websites in the article already which they have not refuted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Gopal Das

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

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

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

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

This article was AfD'ed in March 2018 and I don't see much evidence that much as changed since then. The article itself is very promotional with lots of references that would not meet WP:RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe keenly there are more than 15 to 20 References from various Newspapers and few from the University websites. There is no reason to delete the article. MRRaja001 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO lacking support for notability. Created TOOSOON after first AfD, and with no lessons learned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author of article) lacking support for notability? The Hindu, Times of India, Gulf News, Republic World, Muscat Daily all these are most famous new papers, which i think is enough for references. 1. TEDx talk at IIM Ranchi 2. Was invited for 3-day techfest along with Dalai Lama at IIT Bombay, where 7,000 students took part 3.speeches at leading companies in the world.MRRaja001 (talk) 9:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. No, those are not signs of notability. Motivational speakers give motivational speeches, it's how why they have that job title. See the previous AfD discussion for more about this. And having promotional press releases published in a notable paper also doesn't confer notability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 15 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) 04:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started cleaning up some of the most promotional text, and have removed several sources that were entirely promotional or else trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. There is one thing that has changed since the previous AfD, and that is the fact that he has received a honorary doctorate - the problem is that I'm not quite sure of the status of such doctorates in India. In Sweden, it would definitely be a sign of notability but I have come to understand that at some universities in e.g. the USA the requirements for a honoris causa doctorate can be extremely flimsy. Does anybody know the situation in India? --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bonadea: Nice job. Little now giving notability. The university in question is a private college, the MIT - World Peace University (we should use that title - or was it a sub-group?), which is unknown to me. Again, most people getting honorary doctorates in my part of the world have lots of good quality RS on their notability – E.g. the honorary doctorate is not needed to establish notability, as the figure is usually highly notable, which is why they get the HD. Britishfinance (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably. I see a lot of coverage of his talks - not press releases, but reports with bylines in multiple, reliable, independent newspapers, including the Times of India - coverage which is not currently in the article. The previous AfD ran for only one week, and had 2 delete votes (including the Nom), and one keep, and there is very little discussion in it, and none that is relevant to the question of significant coverage of his talks (rather than reliable sources for whether he spoke in the UK parliament and Google head office). I would say that he meets WP:BASIC, and perhaps WP:AUTHOR #3. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No single RS covered his Google talk; the main ref is his facebook page? [2]. Speaking in a company does not make you interently notable. I am sure there are many priests etc. who have given talks in companies. It does not make them notable, and particularly so with the body of RS decides not to report on the talk (which is why WPs reliles on GNG at it's core).

He did not deliver "a talk to the UK Parliment". There is a single reference to him being "in" the UK Parliment on - again - facebook pages [3]. If you search the official "Parliment.UK" site [4], there is nothing on Gaur Gopal Das. Maybe he spoke to a few MPs in a small room, but the essence of this is a fake claim.

I can't find a single article on the subject in a material RS. No independent bio article, no independent book on him, no appearance on a main tv network, no chapter in an independent book. Nothing. Only passing references to his talks/PR campaigns to promote himself as a guru.

In addition, there is not even a "contrived" case that he meets as NAUTHOR – unless we assume that anybody who writes their own book which is discussed in non-RS (e.g. fans, his blogs etc.), is now a valid BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after some careful consideration. His talks are not notable (again I refer to my rationale for that in the previous AfD - I know that had very low participation but it seems like a waste of time to repeat my arguments, which are identical). There is no significant coverage in independent sources. And I've arrived at the opinion that the honorary doctorate doesn't confer notability on its own given the fact that the awarding institution is not allowed to call itself a university, and as Britishfinance points out, in almost all cases where a honoris causa doctorate is notable, the person receiving it was already notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, not a notable subject. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But she didn't list any sources? AfD only works if people list RS so they can be debated. GNG is not about proving "existance", it is about "notability", and in that regard requires "several significant independent RS". At the moment, we don't even have one. Otherwise, it is just a vote (which it is not meant to be). Britishfinance (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a google news search shows some reliable significant coverage in Hindi major newpapers, just that the majority are Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hninthuzar (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google news search shows a lot of primary references from his sources/name checking him. There is not a single significant material RS "on him" (of which he is the subject), which is why none of the keep votes have produced any (despite other editors going through in detail above). All we get are general statements. Britishfinance (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: What's going on with deleting it. You know it's going to be harder to know if been deleted. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of poppycock going on in this article. Wikipedia is not for advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:AUTHOR. --K.e.coffman ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]—]) 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he meet WP:AUTHOR #3 and speech in the UK parliament and Google head office. promo text are already removed by other editor. Ratherfel (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:NAUTHOR #3? That requires rather a lot more than simply publishing a book. --bonadea contributions talk 06:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see Rebecca's cmt. Ratherfel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if you clarified what you mean. What has he authored that constitutes a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@69.160.30.58: @Ratherfel: Because you just joined Wikipedia today, and your first edit is to make a proper formed entry on the AfD section (and know how to substitite "Ratherfel" for your IP-address in signatures), you may not realise that AfD is not a vote (see banner above). You must provide arguements that meet WP:PNG. You should also be aware of WP:SOCK. We have a subject (and his followers) who are trying to use Wikipedia to improve his notability (because he has not been the subject of any significant WP:RS as a subject). However, in Wikipedia, is it the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Please read the above carefully. Any claim of notability that this charachter has (as per the first AfD) is either faked (that he "addressed the UK parliment"), or not from an WP:RS (there are plenlty of follower blogs/facebook junk), or not relevant to WP notability (e.g. giving a talk to a group in Google, which no RS reported on). There is a WP:SOCK element here and "Keep" votes based on ILIKEIT (or contrived interpritations of NAUTHOR) vs. WP:PAG. BLPs with a strong COI/PROMO aspect should not be "contrived" cases. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 1 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 merge to Radisson Hotel Group. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country Inn & Suites

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The page history was full of COI and unsourced edits, and not enough reliable source to pass GNG or allow editors to write a full length article about the chain, formerly known as Country Inns & Suites. Also, it seem too much Matryoshka set of articles for a hotel group Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to somewhere. Not enough detailed sources for a standalone article, but is of sufficient note to warrant a mention in another article.--Pontificalibus 07:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be Radisson Hotel Group the current parent company? (the article that currently occupied the article title Radisson Hotel Group, was being RM to its former, original title Rezidor Hotel Group (the licensee of the brand Country Inn, but not a owner), with a new draft was written located here Draft:Radisson Hotel Group. Since Carlson Companies is the former owner, and Radisson Hotels seem about the brand Radisson only, Radisson Hotel Group seem the right place. Matthew hk (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing of note to warrant merging with any other article - it is one single hotel in a massive global hotel chain. None of the references demonstrate notability either and fail WP:NCOR. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a single hotel: it's a large hotel chain with over 1300 locations throughout the US. Skirts89 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it did not have 1,300 Country Inns . The previous editors just misinterpreted this source. According to this press release , whole Radisson Hotel Group had 1,400 hotels, which include many hotels under Radisson Blu, Radisson, Radisson Collection, Radisson Red, Park Inn, Park Plaza brands. Matthew hk (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for that clarification - you are correct. However, it looks like there are actually 485 hotels. I think this is significant for a chain. Please see source here: https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/countryinnsuitesbyradisson/282249. Skirts89 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have X number of hotels did not mean it pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Radisson Hotel Group as it is a part of this chain and is marketed as such. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 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) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Trillfendi (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per HighKing. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 13:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Remagoxer please be more careful when nominating articles for deletion. Although this was closed as a delete, if I had caught it earlier I would have closed it on the grounds of not posting a valid deletion criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem please note I did not nominate this, only voted delete. Remagoxer (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Dylan

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

I do not recognise "Dynamite Dylan" because, he is too young. Banana19208 (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is your honest rationale "he's too young"? But I think there is a lack of RSs so delete. Remagoxer (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete His age has nothing to do with it. The problem is lack/quality of sources. Most of them are junk, but he does have a reasonably notable profile in Billboard, but the fact it is an interview consisting of him talking about his aspirations gives me pause. Plus he does have a top 40 digital download appearance, albeit in collaboration with another artist. For this reason, it is a "weak" delete. A few more decent example of reliable source coverage could get me to change my mind. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:04, 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) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: regardless of his age, he fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:MUSICBIO on account of only having the lone Billboard profile and the lone joint top-40 digital download record. MarkH21 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Youells

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE shows nothing. -- Flooded. Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 (sig inspired by Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. MarkH21 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTimestamps

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

Non-notable software. The non-primary sources in the article are three mentions in this paper (search only "opent" or it won't find all mentions), a student paper, and Bitcoin Magazine. Џ 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attach some other non-primary sources:

Immutability of Open Data through Distributed Storage, Keio University (Japan), Graduation Thesis
Providing Reliable Log Delivery And Integrity of Logs, Tallinn University of Technology, Master Thesis
How to achieve trustless digital timestamping with zero marginal cost, Politecnico di Milano, "Tesi di Laurea"
Difficulties of Timestamping Archived Web Pages, Old Dominion University (Norfolk, VA)

I consider OpenTimestamps is notable for a Wikipedia article. It provides a robust decentralized timestamping format, and it is already used by many notary services and companies.

--FrankAndProust (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specify here the arXiv document presented by the OP to better recognize the title and further facilitate ongoing debate if necessary.

(Short Paper) Towards More Reliable Bitcoin Timestamps, Singapore University of Technology and Design

The Bitcoin Magazine article introduced by the OP is also published on NASDAQ:

OpenTimestamps Has Timestamped the Entire Internet Archive — Here’s How

--FrankAndProust (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources are student papers (Italian one says "Tesi di Laurea di/Thesis of") which probably don't qualify as reliable sources. The fourth mentions it five times, but only along with other similar services.

Page 5 "Services, such as OriginStamp 4 , Chainpoint 5 , and OpenTimestamps 6 , generate trusted timestamps in Bitcoin for digital documents. Even though timestamping steps might vary from one service to another, they follow a common procedure:"
Page 6 "Other services, such as Chainpoint, Tangible.io 7, Proof of Existence 8, and OpenTimestamps, are based on the same concept of using Bitcoin to timestamp digital documents. Some differences between these tools include:"
Next three on page 7 "Services like OriginStamp, ChainPoint, and OpenTimestamps support issuing either one Bitcoin transaction per submitted hash or one transaction per aggregated hash."
"Chainpoint and OpenTimestamps uses a Merkle Tree [24] to generate one aggregated hash (i.e., root hash)."
"Chainpoint and OpenTimestamps require installing client software in order to use the timestamping service" Џ 12:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no RS coverage, academic sources are passing mentions in sources that don't even meet the standard of peer-reviewed single study - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could delve on other papers, but at least the document "Providing Reliable Log Delivery And Integrity of Logs", from Tallinn University of Technology, is a Master Thesis and it has been supervised by a PhD working as a Senior Research Fellow. --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The project may not be quite relevant from a purely academic perspective, but it is for practical applications.
OpenTimestamps does not make use of novel techniques to perform its tasks; the main idea behind it can be found in this paper Improving the Efficiency and Reliability of Digital Time-Stamping, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, 1993 (which is itself cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper), with the main difference that instead of using newspaper advertisment it uses a Bitcoin transaction (or something else, as the project tries to be more abstract). In addition OTS aims to perform a single task, making it easy to embed it in other services (e.g. timestamp database logs, timestamp git commits), but also too simple to raise academic interest. Due to these reasons, it is not simple to submit an academic paper with OTS as a topic or to start a PhD with it as a subject.
In my opinion, OTS is notable and this article is relevant as it provides a high-level description of an open-source software which brings users with a new possibilty: to easily create and independently verify timestamps of their data without the need to trust the timestamp server. In the use cases section there is a list of relevant use cases enabled by OTS.
Would the lack of reliable academic papers citing OTS be enough to delete the page?
In which ways should this article be improved to avoid deletion?
Should it be more adherent to the style guidelines?
Thank you in advance. --LeoComandini (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OpenTimestamps is notable for a Wikipedia article. It provides a robust decentralized timestamping format, and it is already used by many notary services and companies.
There is already an academic paper which has been reviewed by a Senior Research Fellow at University of Tallinn. Additionally, the article at NASDAQ provides a simple technical perspective of OpenTimestamps and may also be considered a reliable source. --FrankAndProust (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally a crypto blog reprint in their blog, so no it can't - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing an article verbatim does not invalidate the fact that it has been published by NASDAQ. Many reliable news organizations also publish verbatim reports by agencies worldwide. Those reports are usually reviewed to a certain extent before being published by the new media brand.--FrankAndProust (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ is not a news source, let alone a WP:RS - it's the blog of an exchange. NASDAQ blog reposts of crypto blogs are generally treated as crypto blogs. This strongly suggests you don't in fact have good sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ is nothing less than the second largest stock exchange in the world, which is owned by Nasdaq Inc, a multinational financial services corporation. I wouldn't dismiss their publication as a common blog.

I post a new document published by Springer Science+Business Media. It is a poster paper written by Peter Todd, the original developer of OpenTimestamps, and by Harry Halpin, a Senior Research Scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Poster papers, "OpenTimestamps: Securing Software Updates Using the Bitcoin Blockchain"
It is part of the book "Financial Cryptography and Data Security" 21st International Conference, FC 2017, Sliema, Malta, April 3-7, 2017, Revised Selected Papers. I hope this new paper adds to the previous documents and it is favorably evaluated to consider OpenTimestamps as notable for a Wikipedia article.--FrankAndProust (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ states on the bottom of the republished Bitcoin Magazine article: "The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc." That paper with Peter Todd as a co-author doesn't add to notability either since it's not independent Џ 00:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be considered independent within reason. AFAIK, the publisher (Springer) is not closely affiliated with OpenTimestamps, which is anyway an open-source project to manage decentralized proofs of existence. The fact that Springer, a firm with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, agrees to publish this study on a book of revised selected papers, assists on the notability to the subject.--FrankAndProust (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI here is a recent reference from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00447-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:606:AE44:2848:EC71:1414:271E (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more which appears to be peer reviewed; the reviewers specifically asked for OpenTimestamps to be mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29167732/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:606:AE44:2848:EC71:1414:271E (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the Nature ref. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 7 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) 04:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in a major blockchain-related news site: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoins-blockchain-timestamping-standards-face-off/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:605:3FE1:B1B3:FB2:6C7E:D1F6 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ... Per a scan of scholar citations and arguments above and importance of timestamps/security.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Douglas (producer)

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

I'm not sure that we consider the producer of a notable song to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable music producer. Claim of notability mentioned as per working with notable musicians but not references to back up and no WP:RS available. Searches bring up less than 3 mentions. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gharaibeh

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

this tribe is not notable enough in jordan and in Arab world. in addition it has no enough resources to prove notablity and it contains many controversial information without any resources. i think there's a bias in the article because both the creator Dawod (talk · contribs) and Gharaibeh (talk · contribs) who are a major contributors to the article of their tribe and that is clear from the page history مصعب (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We at ar. wiki usually follow strict rules concerning tribes and clans in the Arab world, the only Google results about this tribe seems to be from forums and social media pages that are concerned with this tribe in particular and the northern area of Jordan in general. Thus it doesn't seem to be notable--باسم (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous colleagues that this is a tribe (clan) like many other tribes, without any significant notability. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original work. --Helmoony (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aigaion

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

No clear claim to notability. Defunct software project that does not appear to ever have been meaningfully adopted or covered in any reliable sources. Avram (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that this is the second nomination and the first ended in Delete. So perhaps this should just have been speedy-delete. Apologies for the noise if so. Avram (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything with a quick Googling. Not even that it's defunct. (There is a hotel or a place in Greece). The 2006 deletion looked definitive, and the standards were much lower then. If the author could come up with some references I might reconsider. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches indicate some sources for this tool: it was included in a "Comparison of reference management software" table ([5]) and there is also a case study whose pages 6-10 describe installing and using this tool ([6], Scribd and other locations) and also on pages 18-20 of a comparative study. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genesys Works

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

non notable organization, promotional and hasn't received any coverage despite their "big name" clients. Praxidicae (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: May be eligible in the future, but it seems like there is very little significant third-party coverage online.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been here for 11 years... Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kayisha Payne

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

Doesn't seem to pass the Google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: She seems like she's on an upward trajectory, but it seems premature to include her in Wikipedia yet.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the topic of GNG: ~~One reference looks to be independent - astrazeneca,~~ but all the other material looks to be written by our subject or released from the organisation founded by the subject. Accademic notability is absent, and even appearance in a top 100 of a small group is not a great claim of importance. Doing a Google search reveals the same references we already have, and a big bunch of solcial media, a significant sign of not being notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: - Astrazeneca is not independent- it's her employer. MedImmune is a wholly owned subsidiary of Astrazeneca, the release by Astrazeneca is a rather standard PR piece prompted by an employee being mentioned positively in the media (in this case in the BAME list). Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK struck my wrong comment, and now a stronger delete vote, being a draft for a few years is also acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [7] published as a influencer if the FT, which established notability. One of the under-represented groups on wikipedia that we should be creating articles for. W C M_email 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Wee Curry Monster. Hninthuzar (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to really that shows notability in subject. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have noticed a tendency for new articles to be nominated for deletion (or even PRODded) very quickly. This article is one week old. The subject's inclusion in a Top 100 BAME leaders in technology dates from just over 2 months ago. The article includes sources like the Financial Times, the official blog of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the Inclusive Boards website profile of her, indications that she has gained notability, and is a likely subject for searches. I would prefer to tag the article for notability and more sources, as per WP:BEFORE C2 and C3. The two months that have passed since her inclusion in the Top100 list is not enough time for many scholarly journals to publish anything about it. Some may say it's too soon to include her, but an alternative viewpoint is that Wikipedia can be too quick to delete. Another alternative to deletion would be draftifying or userfying - that would enable the creator and/or other editors to add other sources as they are found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to keep the article because she does have reliable third party sources. The FT establishes her as notable, especially. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the 100 people mentioned over there are wiki-notable? ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources used in the article already indicate notability. More could no doubt be found.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find it.∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete-TOOSOON per Graemme. Fails any notability guideline by a few miles or so () and being in the 100s is utterly non-satisfying.∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not averse to a draftification, per Rebecaa's ideas.∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable - is not close to passing any SNG or GNG. Being named in an ethnic-specific top-100 in a sector-specific list is not an indication of notability nor a significant award. The sole usable reference is the article (disregarding blogs and non-independent sources (e.g. her employer, and an organization she's involved with)) is the FT article (a list of "top 100 BAME in tech") which contains a single line about Payne in the middle of the list - "Kayisha Payne Founder, BBSTEM Associate Scientist II, MedImmune Female" - so clearly fails WP:INDEPTH. Given the clear lack of multiple reliable, independent, in-depth, secondary sources - an article on this subject can not be developed while adhering to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTSOAP. Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing indications of notability as a scientist or by meeting WP:GNG. As a scientist, her job title is a seemingly unimpressive "Associate Scientist" and, more importantly, I can't find a single reference of her in Google Scholar. In terms of meeting WP:GNG, my own search doesn't find any significant independent coverage. The references in the article consist of something from her company, a short resume from inclusiveboards.com (reliability?), a blog, something from the organization she started, and the listing of her in the FT's article about the list they created (and that's is not significant coverage). This article, at best, seems WP:TOOSOON and claiming notability for founding an new organization that launched last August is both too soon and WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. no achievements of significance found as yet. Only refs are not WP:INDEPTH. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 9 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) 04:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen and WeeCurryMonster -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article, nor any other editors, nor my own search found significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to show the GNG is met. I also don't see that any other notability standards are met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page about a project manager in the research labs of drug company AstraZeneca. She is NOT a PhD scientist and there is no claim ot notability as a scientist. She is a sort of poster child for minority-women-in-STEM, but even here she has no serious or significant claim to notability. I strongly suspect ever editor at Wikipedia of having a strong bias in favor of minorities and women making STEM contributions and of having STEM careers open to everyone. That does not mean that being listed as one of the top 100 black and minority ethnic leaders in technology in the UK in 2018 + notability. It means that the UK has an embarrassingly low number of black and minority ethnic scientists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I am not opposed to it being a draft. I tried searching for research papers/citations but I am unable to find (which could be plausible if the person is not an academic/educator). When I look for sources, there is a mention on a list in Financial Times, but it is among many other names and doesn't offer significant coverage. Lists such as "top x people of y ethnicity in z field" are often published by many media houses and it is unclear how selective they are. Other than this, I am drawing much of a blank for independent third party coverage. I think the person could become notable in the future, but at this time there are very few sources which provide significant coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is hype over substance (and this is not a media-BLP, but a science/academic BLP). Her WP:GNG criteria and her WP:NPROF are effectively zero. I don't know if Astra Zeneca's HR marketing department is at work here but if she hadn't appeard on this top 100 list (however it was constructed), she would be a strong WP:A7 candidate. WP:TOOSOON implies that she is on an academic trajectory, but apart from being an "associate scientist" in AZ, there is no tangible evidence of even such a trajectory? Britishfinance (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genie in a String Bikini

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

The film does not appear to have enough coverage from notable, reliable sources to satisfy the conditions for Wikipedia:Notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and the external reviews section at IMDb only has unreliable blog type sources so WP:GNG is not passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 2 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) 04:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramez Baassiri

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All coverage that I was able to find was just the promoting the subject's book, of which I can find no independent reviews. Previously nominated for PROD by Willsome429, dePROD by initial editor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. None of the sources on page support notability as an author or as a businessman. And none were found in a search. He publishes an occassional short essay, that's all that my searches turned up. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 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. Tone 16:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Language Services

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

They have won a few start-up business awards but are basically an English language training school in Hong Kong. Fails WP:GNG and has elements of being a promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. I don't object on creating article about British Council HK and some tutoring school that became listed company (i.e. may have enough GNG and company in-depth coverage). But this one, never heard of it, no RS to support WP:GNG notability, and G11 speedy deletion tone (promotional tone). Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the firm did have significant size based on google hit of the Chinese name "雅理加語言教育中心" or "雅理加語言培訓中心". However still lack of GNG passing news article. Matthew hk (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with edits! (Author) Hi all, writer of the article here. Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. Wrote this article as a start to flesh out the Education in Hong Kong/China category. As Matthew hk pointed out tutoring schools and British Council are quite notable in Hong Kong even if they don't always meet the GNG criteria. It's a hugely influential industry in the city and Eureka is notable in the education sector here especially amongst local schools. I welcome suggestions to remove anything that sounds promotional.--Funkymonkeyinthesun (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks but Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting a business. There are better websites for you for such a purpose. Britishfinance (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry that you have that impression. My intention is to move onto improving the following existing articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Level_Learning , continue to expand (from the Chinese article) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Red_Cross_Youth_League, and increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_English-speaking_Teacher_scheme. I have no intention of promoting a singular business, so I would love to know your feedback so that I might be able to continue to improve the category "Education in Hong Kong" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Education_in_Hong_Kong. Thanks.Funkymonkeyinthesun (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem it was transcluded (Special:Diff/881316076), somehow DannyS712 relisted the Afd (Special:Diff/882422654) and not sure what happened after that. Matthew hk (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: I edit-conflicted with myself is Special:Diff/882422653. I have brought it up with the XfD closer script's creator, and know how to avoid this in the future (don't relist afds from their subpages to soon after each other). Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional per nom. I would need to see more sources in order to support the claim that language schools are especially notable in Hong Kong. Skirts⁸⁹ 01:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClassifEye

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

I felt this was a candidate for CSD:A7 but am not a tech person so decided to go AfD under non-notable company and non-notable technology (most references are from 10 years ago). Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's note: Notability began with a full article published a decade ago about the company's technology and benefit to India. An article about Haloid would not be something to delete, even if today people ask "please Xerox it" rather than please Haloid it. I added a "Benefits to poor" section to this Wiki stub, which now includes book citations. Pi314m (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author observation: Wiki asks for contribtions, decries information being lost, and then . . . history gets deleted? A report posted to the U.S. Department of Justice, available here, says that nine companies in this space developed "contactless fingerprint technologies that are worth noting." The first two are now facing deletion from Wiki's servers. ClassifEye is listed first of the nine. The second is also HatNoted. The report notes both companies have closed. Is this like deleting history? I updated the ClassifEye article to point to the report. Pi314m (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Author asks) Merge? i.e. Start an article named Contactless fingerprinting and use both the above article and runner up Pay By Touch, the top two in the Justice Department report, as examples/sections? Pi314m (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pi314m That sounds like a good idea as the technology is likely notable (presuming that there is no existing WP article on this), and it could include discussion around the companies in the space. I find myself recommending on AfD often that older articles, where the sources have dried up for a decade, it is better to consolidate articles around a main theme. It is most likely as time goes on that such consolidated articles will survive, whereas individual weak cases will get deleted and and useful history/references lost. Britishfinance (talk) 17:50, 15 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) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, as articles on technologies are not used to house information on the companies, as it's undue promotional details. I removed the corporate overviews for the two companies: diff. It's excessive and misplaced. Generally, corporate articles are merged if there's a parent company, not a technology article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. Got it. Without naming the companies (ClassifEye _and_ Pay By Touch), I described application of their technology: USA, England, India, Peru, Israel (section name: Applications). Pi314m (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy

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

Non-notable organization, as well as a highly promotional article tone CatcherStorm ^talk 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am convinced that this article complies with the principles and aims of Wikipedia. ESCOP is an internationally acknowledged scientific association of European experts in phytotherapy. ESCOP publishes books that are used as references by pharmacists, medical doctors. Phytomedicine, one highly ranked scientific journal is published in affiliation with ESCOP. ESCOP regularly takes part in the public consultation of the European Medicines Agency. This article is supported by several third-party references. Moreover, it is the translation of an already existing German page. Csupord (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be a number of external references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable to me too. If you don't want it to contain promotional content, remove it yourself. Do it yourself If you are not sure, bring the issue to the talk-page. Someone will make the right-decision as long as your give specific reasoning on why the content ought to be chopped off. As an example:

I saw "zirconia is metal free and is biocompatible" in the old version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_analogue_dental_implant&oldid=880308366
Then, I gave my independent thought. I said "Conventional titanium is biocompatible too, thus I find this sentence to be boasting".
Someone else chopped off the entire "Advantages" section, and I agree to do so. We shouldn't "force" someone else to read non-neutral content. Tony85poon (talk) 00:16, 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) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, per various WP:Notability standards met. Subject is influential in her field. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Slessor

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

non-notable editor, no coverage and only actual hits on her name are pieces she's written. fails gng. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and failure of WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. MarkH21 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revised to Keep on RebeccaGreen's post.~~ MarkH21 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-revised back to Delete after realizing that the Architectural Review is a magazine and not an academic journal, so the subject does not qualify under WP:NACADEMIC #8. MarkH21 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Architectural Review has been published since 1896; Slessor has been its editor (I have just added as a reference 'Catherine Slessor: a trailblazer in male-dominated industries.': "As the editorial torch is passed, we look back at the career of Catherine Slessor and the AR under her leadership." (Tom Wilkinson, The Architectural Review, 2015)). She therefore meets WP:NACADEMIC #8 "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." (She may meet other criteria too, but only one is needed.) Note that WP:NACADEMIC states: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." The article could certainly be expanded, but the subject does meet notability requirements. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Architectural Review a magazine? It's not an academic journal. MarkH21 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen, and IMO, she meet some criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, So my vote was Keep. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the AJ editorship and article. PamD 11:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And per her extensive authorship of books which I'm sure were reviewed in serious newspapers and journals of the time though not easy to find quickly online: I've added a few to the article, with templated ISBNs for sourcing. PamD 11:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have full paid access to newspaper archives and I found absolutely nothing significant about her or her works, in fact, the only lengthy pieces I found were for someone else, unless of course she was born in 1901. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I didn't go through all her books, but I added the reviews that I saw to the article. I think its likely that more reviews exist in journals and newspapers. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. She is an MBE specifically for "services to Architectural Journalism". (p. 80) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyLillith (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that being an MBE is not typically regarded as significant enough to merit notability. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards and honors). MarkH21 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't just that she has an MBE, it's that her work is recognized as so outstanding in her specific field, that it is recognized as such by people/an organization that has nothing to do with her field. Per this, it states "They are now awarded for prominent national or regional roles and to those making distinguished or notable contributions in their own specific areas of activity. The honour of an MBE, in particular, can be given for achievement or service in the community." LovelyLillith (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But recognition by those outside of her field is not one of the points of WP:JOURNALIST, and the MBE itself is insufficient for #1 of WP:ANYBIO.

Regarding the actual criteria of WP:JOURNALIST, I'm not convinced that she's regarded as an important figure in her field by others in her field (#1 in WP:JOURNALIST). She hasn't received any awards for journalism (nor architecture) and the only mentions that anyone can find of her work are

1. an article in the magazine of which she was editor about her leaving the editorship

2. five book reviews (the existence of which do not mean the author is considered important), one in print on "See-through houses" on which I cannot find any other recognition and four on "Eco-Tech" which is self-described as a survey book and which the only digitally-available review calls an "introduction" with "rather limited information on each project."

There simply isn't any evidence of independent recognition within her field that anyone has been able to find. MarkH21 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused here as a lot of what's being stated is totally unsubstantiated by independent sources. Virtually nothing that anyone has included is independent (including the piece written by her own colleague.) I would expect for someone so "prominent" in their field, there'd be readily available sources to support such statements. As far as the NACADEMIC claim, I'd suggest revisiting that statement because that's a massive stretch. ~~This is definitely borderline at this point and I'll gladly withdraw but independent sources absolutely need to be added. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)~~striking per MarkH21's evaluation. Praxidicae (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked at Architectural Review again. While it's true that it's not an academic journal, it was indexed by Scopus during the time that Slessor was editor. Many notable people have edited it or contributed to it. It does seem to be an influential and respected publication in the field of architecture and urban design. (I note also that some titles which Wikipedia considers magazines, Scopus considers journals, and vice versa, although that is not the case with Architectural Review). I don't know how we find sources, other than book reviews, from within her field that are totally independent, but there is a tribute to her in another architectural magazine/journal, and, in Architectural Review, tributes from such notable people within her fields (architecture/architectural writing) as Norman Foster, Nicholas Grimshaw, Tom Dyckhoff, Sou Fujimoto, Hugh Pearman, and Roger Zogolovitch. I have found reviews of all four of her books named in the article, and I have added those references. If being a respected editor of a notable magazine is not sufficient, she certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quantity & praise of book reviews, citations, etc. would serve as independent sources, my qualm was just with the fact that the magazine article was coming from her magazine (i.e. her employer) which is not independent. The new reviews and these tributes would certainly merit notability by WP:NAUTHOR. I can't see the article containing those tributes though, as the link directs to an Australian government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I have access through the National Library of Australia; other editors will have access to Ebsco, Gale and other databases through other subscriptions or institutions. I can add some of the words of tribute, though others will still have to WP:AGF that they are actually in the sources quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh certainly, I was just remarking that I cannot personally verify the content of those sources right now. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Architecture Review is a major general interest magazine. in the field. Scopus does cover these sources, as they are sometimes cited in academic work. But the magazine is important enough that the academic or non academic nature doesn't matter for her notability DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 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. bd2412 T 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von Briesen & Roper

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

Article version nominated for deletion

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Unable to find in-depth independent coverage in RS. WP is not a business directory. MB 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent content added from external sources. Please advise of additional specific changes to avoid deletion. Rules of Engagement for similar biz types seem selectively enforced. Bbcaraher 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — Bbcaraher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia has few actual rules. However, the Wikimedia Foundation does have terms of service that prohibit undisclosed paid editing, which includes editing on behalf of an employer or client. Given the timing and specificity of your arrival and edits, I recommend that you review the WP:COI policy and take any appropriate action. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources reliable but "local" - I've done some work on the article, cleaning up the existing citations and adding others, but I've had no luck finding national or international sources to support the article. That's not a reason to delete, though. See this link for a diff between my last edit and the version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Von_Briesen_%26_Roper&type=revision&diff=881356678&oldid=881308136&diffmode=source . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:K.e.coffman. The article states "regional, national and international practice" but many law firms have national and international connections. This is just providing yellow page coverage and advertising on larger law firms of which there are probably multiple hundreds in the U.S. alone and likely thousands worldwide. Otr500 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Justice

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

Page is for an organisation presumably defunct, no cites, the two external links don't lead anywhere and nothing coming up in search apart from a listing, and several organisations of the same name, to confuse the issue. Mramoeba (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article isn't kept then I'd recommend redirecting it back to Natural justice which it was before this article was created in 2006. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization is now known as The Institute for Food, Brain, and Behavior... but doesn't seem to have received any more coverage under that identity. There are a ton of other Natural Justices out there. The most prominent seems to be a South African legal org, but I'm not convinced of notability there either. No objection to the proposed redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once notable, always notable. A defunct notable organization does not lose its notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "homepage" that this article links to had advice on getting "personal injury lawyers"? There is no notability here. Britishfinance (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject seems not to establish notability.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 15:53, 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, after much-extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By Common Consent

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

As per WP:BEFORE source searches, including several custom searches, it appears that this blog fails WP:WEBCRIT. Other than this source, source searches are providing passing mentions about what people have written on the blog, and name checks, but no additional significant coverage about the blog itself has been found. Multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required to qualify notability, not just one. Additionally, the many primary sources in the article do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a LOT of cruft in the article, but I feel coverage such as [8] to be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 7 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) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a well written/structured article, but it gets good mention in New York Times, Steve Evans gets to write about his blog in The Washington Post, also noted in Chicago Tribune. The list goes on. What is more, is that I can see quality U.S. media outlets consider this blog to be a quotable source on Mormon topics. This passes WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Britishfinance. This is a notable blog on the topic of the LDS church. SJK (talk) 20:15, 23 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) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rukshana Kapali

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

Not passing WP:ANYBIO for now. Daiyusha (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails our guidelines for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable activist,fail WP:NPOL. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft Keep. No prejudice to renomination after two months. (non-admin closure) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 13:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad Fares

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

lack of notability WikiUser658 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — WikiUser658 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

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

I disagree. You can check that all the references are up-to-date, valid and follow the wikipedia protocol for acceptable references that are to be used in biographies of living people. As you are a new user, I urge you to read wikipedia policies before requesting the deletion or editing of pages. Lebsci (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just some of the english media coverage in 2018 and January 2019:

THIS LEBANESE DOCTOR IS BRINGING HOPE TO THE COUNTRY’S CLUSTER BOMB SURVIVORS: HTTP://WWW.ALMAKTOUMINITIATIVES.ORG/EN/MEE/ARTICLEDETAIL/?ARTICLEURL=THIS-LEBANESE-DOCTOR-IS-BRINGING-HOPE-TO-THE-COUNTRY-S-CLUSTER-BOMB-SURVIVORS

A PIONEERING SCIENTIST, SURGEON, AND RESEARCHER: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/186050e2?page=56

FORBES 30 UNDER 30 EUROPE: https://www.forbes.com/profile/jawad-fares/

FORBES 30 UNDER 30 MIDDLE EAST: https://archives.forbesmiddleeast.com/en/list/arab-30-under-30-class-2018/

ARAB YOUTH PIONEER: http://pioneers.arabyouthcenter.org/en/#pioneers/678

GEN TOP 10 YOUNG SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD: HTTPS://WWW.GENENGNEWS.COM/A-LISTS/TOP-10-UNDER-40-2/

Lebanese doctor makes Forbes' 30 under 30 list!: https://www.the961.com/ranked/lebanese-doctor-makes-30-under-30-list

Lebanese make '30 under 30' list of Forbes MENA: https://www.the961.com/ranked/8-lebanese-make-forbes-mena-30-under-30-list

From Dinosaurs To Bionic Limbs: The 2018 Europe 30 Under 30 In Science And Healthcare: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2018/01/21/from-bionic-limbs-to-dinosaurs-30-under-30-europe-in-science-and-healthcare/#6ded88f81616

In addition to large coverage once the name is searched for in Arabic: جواد فارس : https://www.google.com/search?oq=%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF+%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3+&q=%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF%20%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3

Thank you Lebsci (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may well get through the general notability guideline, but does not appear to pass any of the criteria of WP:PROF. He is "only" a postdoctoral fellow, and his citation record, while excellent for someone of his age, doesn't yet seem to be enough for WP:PROF#C1 in this highly-cited field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed, the subject does get through the general notability guideline. If you check the criteria for WP:PROF, he is requested to meet “only” one of nine criterions. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. WP:PROF#C1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. The subject has developed a medical scale that is widely attributed to him, as evident in Forbes, GEN Bio News, national and international sites. The scale helped solve a major health challenge in treating victims of cluster munitions.Lebsci (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC) — Lebsci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete a non-notable acdemic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. obviously, the man is notable. He may be a young academic but age is not an issue. His achievements had impact and they speak for themselves. I see no reason for deletion.Danielroberts3 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Danielroberts3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. The subject does qualify for WP:GNG, but almost all of the sources are essentially about the fact that he was on Forbes' 30 under 30. The article does seem over-developed and over-detailed for his actual contributions to science. His actual academic achievements are not notable and do not meet WP:PROF given the lack of recognition by the academic community (to which Forbes, Al Maktoum Global Initiatives, etc. do NOT belong). MarkH21 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately a rough consensus formed to delete this article. There was discussion of a redirect that gained some traction, but I consider it to be short of reaching consensus here. Nothing prevents an editor from boldly creating the redirect if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly van der Veer

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

Article doesn’t cite any sources so that’s red flag number one. In trying to find sources... nothing validates any claim in this article and nothing written about her goes beyond a paragraph at most or the links are dead. My Dutch skills are primitive but I know what I read. Trillfendi (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can't build articles just on the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this article has a current issue of not using good sources but checking with google news it seems there are plenty of RS about the subject that could be used. In general if issues with an article can be improved, it shouldn't be deleted. Sources are primarily in Dutch though which may be why they aren't being used currently. Rab V (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I looked at the Dutch sources and they were of no value to a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by no value to Wikipedia? I looked up some English info about a few of the publishers and they seemed fine to be used for RS. Rab V (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship gossip. Sexual escapades. A club appearance. It’s no coincidence that other language translation articles also have 0 sources, including the Dutch one. People may try to make notability out of “she was the trans woman on Big Brother 18 years ago” but there’s not even any significant coverage that goes into that. Appearance doesn’t equal notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the kind of content that comes from sources, including RS, that cover celebrities. Rab V (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these “sources” are not reliable they are tabloids and still offer absolutely no verification of any statement in this article (hence why it remians unsourced). Trillfendi (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (Dutch TV series)? Besides that she doesn't appear to have done much of note. The best English-language source I could find online was this, and while I can't say for the Dutch-language sources, if it's just "celebrity gossip" then I hardly think that makes for a credible claim of notability. For what it's worth I do have a print source from an English magazine, but I still don't think that's enough. PC78 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirection is a good idea. Trillfendi (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete & redirect though. Is there any reason to keep non-notable BLP content? PC78 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was up to me it would just be delete. Trillfendi (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1 !vote for each of delete, keep, and redirect -> need more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to count my !vote as delete. I don't feel that the article or its edit history are worth preserving given the complete lack of reliable sources, though I do think that once deleted the page should be recreated as a valid redirect to Big Brother (Dutch season 3). PC78 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of independent sources. Add sourced content about her at Big_Brother_(Dutch_TV_series) yes, but nothing here is reliably sourced. Also, the actual content here speaks to her non-notability. " the most prominent transsexual person in the Netherlands who rose to fame after competing" in some TV show. Rose to fame? What fame?? "Competed" in a TV show? Didn't even win. Possibly she has a fan base. Sources? " revived her music career "? "appearing in over six television shows"? "established a website "? "Other ventures ... however, was not very successful at the box office." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 22 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) 04:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteness theory

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

WP:OR. The article starts with a claim that "Whiteness theory is understood as a specific theory in Whiteness Studies". However that article doesn't mention "whiteness theory". In the academic research literature there is some mention of "critical whiteness theory" but that bears little relation to what is discussed here. For example the main part of this article "The Pillars of Whiteness Theory" is not supported, and these pillars appear to have been created by the author of this article. The diagram here is also unsoruced WP:OR. --Pontificalibus 08:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, draftify or redirect to Whiteness studies. Obvious OR essay. b uidhe 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and whatever is not OR can be merged into Whiteness Studies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see many academic sources for Whiteness Theory in books and journals - [9][10][11][12][13][14], and it would appear to be something legitimately studied in academia. and should satisfy WP:GNG. The rationale for the AfD is faulty, and any other problems with its content should be dealt with in the article itself and AfD should not be the place to clean up articles. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Per WP:IMPERFECT, we should improve the page, not delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm tempted to call for wp:TNT on this due to the numerous issues it is facing. In addition to the identified OR, the article is American-Centric and is pretty much as far from a neutral point of view as you can get. It's possible, from the sources others have provided, that this is a theory notable enough for inclusion here, but I'm not sure that bringing the current article up to spec will be less work than creating a new one from scratch. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. On a little further reflection, I feel the most suitable option would be to move the article to draft space and allow the creator more time to work on it, removing any OR, as well as ensuring the POV is neutral, and then when they feel they have done this they can submit it through AfC for review. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to draftifying, with the stipulation that the page go through AfC before being accepted. b uidhe 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fraunhofer-Center for High Temperature Materials and Design HTL

(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 – "Fraunhofer-Zentrum für Hochtemperatur-Leichtbau")

It's doubtful whether this subsidiary unit of one of seventy or so research units of the Fraunhofer Society is independently notable. It gets some routine hits on GNews, and one verifiable hit on GBooks. That short paragraph in ECHT Oberfranken is the closest to independent in-depth coverage I've been able to find. I suggested merging to the main article but that's been rejected by the COI editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Here is my reasoning:
- This article in the Nordbayerischer Kurier, an independent local newspaper in Bayreuth, talks about the impact the fibre pilot plant of the Fraunhofer-Center for High Temperature Materials and Design HTL has on Bayreuth and also cites statements from high-profile people that are no related to Fraunhofer Society (among others Ilse Aigner). Thus, I believe this article meets the primary criteria for notability.
- This article in Springer Professional also talks about our fibre pilot plant. Springer Professional should also meet the primary criteria.
- This article in the Automobil Industrie, a magazine dedicated to the car industry, talks about ceramic brief disks, which we produce.
- This article in the Allgemeine Bauzeitung, a magazine dedicated to all things construction-related, goes in-depth about the security aspects of our building.

The main issue here is that they are in fact all in German, but that should still guarantee Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. All in all, I believe that these articles listed show that Fraunhofer-Center for High Temperature Materials and Design HTL should be kept - given of course that I (or someone else) edit it accordingly.Kub htl (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Airlines

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No third party coverage of the airline. Had need verification tag since 2013 with little changes. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the airline clearly existed and operated flights the lack of referencing should have been raised for improvment and is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, all the links are dead and I can't find any third-party coverage required by WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete it just needs some work doing to it, it has flown services using an aircraft as big as the Boeing 757 so is noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not all operational companies are worthy of inclusion. There are tons of charter airline companies but not all of them are on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that very few that have operated aircraft the size of the Boeing 737 or 757 are missing, if there is we need create some new articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why you think an airline that operated 200-seat airliners is not somehow of note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an airline of this size and with this equipment would have significant coverage available, but due to the historic period these would be paper refs, which need to be located. Article needs improving, not deleting. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, well it had the needs verification tag since 2013 and 6 years is a long period of time for reference to be found. Given that nobody did that, it would stand to reason that there is none. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six years is not really a long time in wiki terms, unless somebody brought it to the attention of the project it is unlikely to be noticed. They are 1978 articles in Category:Articles needing additional references from April 2013 among the 360,000 articles tagged. Hardly a go to place. Tagged articles go back to 2006 so the six years is not really significant or relevant. If you find such articles it would be better to go to the relevant project and ask "hey this article needs some refs, anybody help" and give them a chance to improve it rather than AfD straight away. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That comes under WP:BEFORE an AFD is started, sections "C" and "D". - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, well I had checked Google news and all the other sources listed in the "find source" section but nothing came up.

Also, it had been tagged with needs improvement since 2013, so there's plenty of time for the article to be improved. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one of the references in the article satisfy WP:CORPIND. In my BEFORE I was unable to find INDEPTH reliable secondary sources. a short-lived (4 years) small (at peak - 8 aircraft) charter company could plausibly be notable, but it is not a situation where we should presume notability. The dewiki says this was a joint venture with Nordic European Airlines - possibly a merge of some content could be done to there. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. An unremarkable charter airline. These are rarely kept at AfD, unlike scheduled passenger airlines. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer (disambiguation)

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

Most if not all the links given here take the meaning of multiplayer in the same context, don't really seem to fit the meaning of "disambiguation". Its more like a see also section. Daiyusha (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m not sure I follow the deletion rationale. It sounds like you want to delete the dab page for...being a dab page...? I don’t see the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sergecross73, Shouldn't Disambiguation pages be usually for not closely related topics, like for example A page called "Blue" and then writing down "Light Blue", "Dark Blue" and so on inside it is might not qualify for it.This page is kind of similar. Daiyusha (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are for whenever a certain term might refer to multiple articles. There is no need for the subjects not be closely related, just that a user might reasonably expect to find any of the articles listed when searching for "multiplayer". Regards So Why 20:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are for exact name matches. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this doesn't seem any different from Rice (disambiguation), which is the second example at WP:DAB. Multiplayer's primary topic is multiplayer video game, however there are several other topics "multiplayer" could refer to. A another example from WP:DAB is Football (disambiguation) which seems to fit the exact same mold. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The name matching for different articles reasonably means that the disambiguation page should exist! MarkH21 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to Delete upon the realization that almost all of the links are actually redirects or pipes to pages not containing "multiplayer" in the name. MarkH21 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a prime example of what a dab page is not supposed to be: 100% WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every entry is a WP:PTM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll go away after this but since no one is replying to me I'll ask one last question? Are the deletes for PTM acknowledging that the primary topic for Multiplayer is so strongly associated to multiplayer video game that there is zero confusion or association of multiplayer with the other articles? I disagree, but just want to understand the thoughts here. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No. What we're saying is that none of the entries are synonymous with "multiplayer". Let me give you an example. Consider the fictitious Abysmal River. If it's an actual river, then that's fine, because someone could say, "There's a bridge crossing the Abysmal to the north." But say it's a community. Then it's no good because people wouldn't normally refer to it as just Abysmal. The point is that people don't commonly refer to any of the entries as just "multiplayer". (Now it may be that the redirect from Multiplayer to Multiplayer video game is questionable, but that's a separate issue.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I see that there are some unacceptable entries in Rice (disambiguation) (e.g. wet rice), which I will now delete or demote to See also. That may have added to your confusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication of British transport

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created as a content fork from Metrication in the United Kingdom, but never succeeded in demonstrating that it was a notable subject in its own right. The original content comprised mainly of original research (OR) and synthesis. After the OR/synthesis was removed, the only significant content left is that about the UK implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which is new technology and unrelated to metrication, and could be merged into the ERTMS article, if it isn't already there. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I find it hard to accept this nomination has been done in good faith given the history of the OP with the author of this article Martinvl. Both editors have received sanction for disruption on metrication related articles. I also note there has been a steady degradation of the article and as originally written contained a great deal of relevant and useful information. I have struck my original comment following discussion with the nominator. Nonetheless, I would still argue keep as this is a relevant fork, since information related to transportation and metrication does warrant it's own article IMHO. W C M_email 16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: The article was bad from day 1. Detailed edit summaries explain the reasons for any removals I made, and there has been plenty of time since then to question them or add new content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your updated comment, the specific forked topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Anything on transport can adequately be accommodated in the original article, Metrication in the United Kingdom. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the rationale for an article of this nature but on reflection, per Otr500, starting over from scratch may well be a better option. As such, withdrawn my keep comment. W C M_email 14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, I'd say delete, or redirect to Metrication in the United Kingdom per WP:EXTERNALROT.

The problem at the time I nominated this article to AFD before was that the topic did not meet WP:GNG. While there were lots of sources they were practically all primary sources (whereas WP:GNG in its definitions requires secondary sources). WP:PSTS is clear that we cannot interpret primary sources, but this article broke that rule in practically every sourced sentence.

So far as I can see none of the issues have been fundamentally resolved since then. The article still relies principally on primary sources and includes very few secondary sources. Recent efforts to remove the OR have also got rid of most of the content, and we have no way of replacing it in a policy-compliant way - because the article still fails WP:GNG.

IMO, the article is best reabsorbed into Metrication in the United Kingdom. Kahastok talk 21:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are definitely issues. I can see a fork to the transportation side (some agreement with User:Wee Curry Monster) but the article as written is a co-mingling of Metrication in the United Kingdom, European Rail Traffic Management System in Great Britain, and European Rail Traffic Management System without a clear direction. "Metrication in the United Kingdom" at least strikes a balance with the "Public opinion" section (controversy) and links to Road signs in the United Kingdom as well as Metrication opposition. This article title suggests something more specific, British as opposed to United Kingdom, yet the "Background" section uses "See also: Metrication in the United Kingdom", and I can't see a reason for the confusion. As written I also can't see an advantage of having this article and no clear way to fix it except blow it up and start over. Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and previous comments. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Article been around for a long while now and still not escaped OR (and in a poor state). The "Background" is a redo of the main Metrication WP article. The "Road" is tiny (and captured in Metrication). The "Rail" is about "Pan-European signalling systems", which really forms the bulk of text in this article and is not per-se exclusively about Metrification. Situation unlikely to change and no evidence that this is a standalone topic from the main Metrication in the United Kingdom. At minimum a WP:NUKEIT, but I think this topic is also poorly formed, hence delete. Britishfinance (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Mirza

AfDs for this article:

(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.

Page was undeleted recently on a request (Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Mariam_Mirza) by a sock of User:Pakistanpedia. Saqib (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven allegation

Keep Previously it was nominated by now blocked user [15] and only delete vote was of the nominator himself [16] resulted in "soft delete". I check one news source thats why requested. Also please check https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/305233-mariam-mirza in which whole of the news article is about her career. If she is not notable why would admin Graeme Bartlett undeleted the article? Senior actors in Pakistan receives not much coverage but their are many standalone articles then why her not. 185.178.49.114 (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, my undeletion says nothing about notability, only that the previous delete was a softdelete and can be contested. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can somebody who speaks Urdu check and let us know what Pakistani coverage of her says? It seems likely there is coverage, considering English-language sources already linked to. For GNG we require significant coverage in any language, not just in English. For NACTOR we'd need indication that her multiple roles have been significant, etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. samee converse 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject meet Wikipedia WP:Person guidelines and is a prominent actor.Also article has enough material to be on Wikipedia.Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not impressed by the level of WP:PAG cited in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's relatively easy to see she has significant coverage. Regular significant reoccurring role [17] More notable in Pakistan than the West but that's not the point here. Karl Twist (talk) 10:02, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Alamgir

AfDs for this article:

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

Do not pass the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. Suspicious notability per WP guideline. Re-created after previous dissuccion of deletion. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only minor independent coverage by sources exist on the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST just as it did the first time. MarkH21 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There may be notability here. a Proquest new archive search turned some stuff up:

Bangladeshi journalist sued for 'defamatory' Facebook post BBC Monitoring South Asia; London [London]31 Jan 2018....newspaper The Daily Star on 31 January Journalist Anis hitAlamgir was sued......Anis hitAlamgir, a part-time teacher at Dhaka University, made another post on his...
Bangladesh police harass journalists during curfew - paper BBC Monitoring Media; London [London]24 Aug 2007: 1....home during the curfew. Anis Alamgir, news chief of Bashakhi TV,......released, according to the police. Anis Alamgir, head of news at......television channel Boishakhi's head of news hitAnis hitAlamgir, Bangladesh Today...
DIU introduces 'Unconditional Appreciation Awards' The New Nation; Dhaka [Dhaka]04 Sep 2015. ...hitAnis hitAlamgir and Former Pro- Vice Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University Prof...
World journalists body IFJ warns Bangladesh over attacks on media BBC Monitoring Media; London [London]24 Aug 2007: 1. ...over the past two days were hitAnis hitAlamgir, head of the news department at...E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like minor coverage to me. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:09, 7 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) 04:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:JOURNALIST. AD ^Talk 12:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually think sources indicate notability here. I think he does pass WP:GNG at minimum. There are more sources (per EM Gregory above) which should be added as references in the article. Skirts89 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Minor coverage doesn't pass any notability. I found where Anis Alamgir left the human race but that is just a catchy title for "Anis Alamgir resigned from his job" and is mundane coverage. Otr500 (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFC Asian Cup broadcasting rights

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

Fail WP:NOTSTATS and creator is currently blocked because they are sockpuppet but G5 not apply here. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 AFC Asian Cup statistics. If you want to improve articles, please consider merging to 2015 AFC Asian Cup#Broadcasting Hhkohh (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable. Could merit a merge/redirect perhaps. Giant Snowman 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre nomination, this clearly isn't a page about statistics, however the topic on broadcasters is already available on 2015 AFC Asian Cup as Hk has pointed out so I don't see the point in keeping this. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable and already covered in parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2015 AFC Asian Cup#Statistics. Main article contains almost everything of relevance, anything else that editors wish to merge can be taken from the page history Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFC Asian Cup statistics

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 African Cup of Nations statistics, fail WP:NOTSTATS to me. You can consider redirecting per WP:ATD and previous AfD as I mentioned here Hhkohh (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Goalscorers and other relevant stats can be added to the main article in prose and appropriately referenced. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per consensus here. Giant Snowman 13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS, Wikipedia is not suppose to have all this WP:TRIVIA. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nithor Mahbub

AfDs for this article:

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

Had I seen this when created I'd have tagged it A7/G4 but, in deference to the editors who've touched it since its creation here we are...

No claims of notability, "He is publicly associated with...", "He performs...", "He offers training...", "He works as...", but nothing actually notable. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Existing sources are curious at best, or otherwise don't prove subject's notability. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's an autobiography, twice deleted before, created and recreated by a user who has now been blocked for sock puppetry. Schwede 66 19:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 9/11 Truth movement. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Citizens Watch

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fringe site that fails notability guidelines. First AFD was in 2006, however it was flooded with Keep votes from WP:SOCK accounts, hence closing as keep. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would dispute that some of the "Keep" users are sock puppets:

The following are all users with a considerable history of contribution to the project, and with too many contributions for me to consider it likely that they are merely a sock puppet:

USER:Computerjoe - now inactive
USER:ST47 - admin
USER:Angelbo - now inactive
USER:Tony Fox - now inactive, admin
USER:Fairsing - now inactive
USER:Bluedustmite - now inactive

There are only two users who are almost certainly sock puppets, USER:Bov and USER:Gazpacho, and also one that I consider possibly a sock puppet, though probably not, USER:Drett - though it does also appear that they hold some... questionable... political views.

With all that said, taking a quick gander at the sources suggest that the subject is not notable, but I won't vote unless I get the chance to look in more detail. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @NoCOBOL: I quickly scrolled through some of the keep votes as at time i nominated and found out some were blocked SOCK accounts. So i take it back that it was flooded with sock keep votes as i have seen that some were also admins as at then. PlotHelpful (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't this be merged to the 9/11 Comission article, since it is tangentially related? I see a potential, the 2 articles are concise enough. Garlicolive (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019

Comment The section 'Press coverage' looks like a weird way to attempt to establish notability. If the mentions contain useful information you would imagine they be used in the body of the text. Also, if you look at the CSPAN ref, which is a hosting site and therefore primary, it indicates the information on the page isn't even correct. the organisation has two founders, one of whom isn't on the page. Mramoeba (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leaving aside the sockpuppet overpopulation problem with the 1st AfD, and leaving aside the fact that this is a FRINGE, conspiracy theory outfit to look at the sources. Problem is that the souces I find in searches are either FRINGE (self-published books with titles like The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, and Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation into 9/11,) or they are mere mentions , tend to be vague, and have different sets of facts. One of the very few recent mentions in a reliable newspaper, the The York Dispatch, How a national conspiracy theory museum wound up in the 'boondocks' is about a new conspiracy theory "museum, the Hidden History Museum that is composed of stacks of cardboard filing coxes in a rented space in a disused strip mall. The files were collected by a man named John Judge, now deceased. Her's the part about the "9/11 Citizens Watch": [ https://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/mike-argento/2019/01/16/how-national-hidden-history-museum-wound-up-york-county-pa-conspiracy-theory-museum-john-judge/2582211002/ Judge wasn’t a 9/11 truther, though. Tenenoff said, “He thought those people were fanatics." He formed a 9/11 Citizens Watch to counter the 9/11 Commission, asking the questions that weren’t asked. He didn’t believe, as some truthers do, that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. He thought that was preposterous, Tenenoff said. How would they get the explosives in the buildings? Were the explosives built into the buildings’ steel frames? He didn’t buy that. Nor did he buy the notion that the Pentagon attack was staged and that a plane did not crash into it. He lived close enough that he felt it. No, all of that was distraction, he believed. He did have some questions. Were the suspected terrorists identified as being on the planes really on them? Did George W. Bush know about the attacks and let them happen to give him a pretext to invade Iraq? He was more interested in the aftermath, Tenenoff said, the loss of civil liberties, the constant state of war, the amount of power shifted to the government. “He just wanted to know what really happened,” she said. The truth, it seems, is out there, contained somewhere in the 270 boxes and 8,000 books and hundreds of audio and video tapes housed in a small, nondescript office suite in the middle of nowhere, Pennsylvania.]. As someone menitoned above, our article cites a different "founder". In sum, there is just not enough reliable sourced, SECONDARY sourcing to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Working on Keep. Trying to clean up the article and find better sources. Don't know why John Judge (not John Judge) isn't included. Put an external link for 4 C-SPAN videos until I figure out which is used as a ref. Here is an RTF of their 9/11 Commission Critique which concludes, "We do not anticipate that we will disagree with all the many conclusions and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission’s final report..." Still looking for"The Omission Report". There are other bad links too. Org seems less fringe and more just criticizing the process and secrecy of the investigation. If you did merge, maybe Criticism of the 9/11 Commission might be a better article. StrayBolt (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment @StrayBolt: As you are working on it can you get rid of the passing mentions please which are clearly there to give the illusion of notability, as noted above (and one may add the BBC ref to that as well). Coverage needs to be in depth and not trivial. Mramoeba (talk) 09:11, 16 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) 03:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some coverage here at Scoop.co.nz, Wednesday, 24 March 2004, 10:00am - "UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On C-SPAN!" and Scoop.co.nz, Wednesday, 24 March 2004, 10:09 am - "UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On C-SPAN!" And these two ladies attended a 9/11 CitizensWatch press conference. And some of the books that reference this aren't self-published either. Karl Twist (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No see this is exactly what is NOT going to help establish notability. This is making me think delete. The CSPAN refs are all primary because it's coverage of their own press conference made by themselves. It doesn't mean it's ok because Scoop posts a link to it which is what your two links are, a link to a conspiracy theory news aggregator page. Also failing to see how a non free Getty image has anything to do with this. If this is the best there is, then it's not notable. Mramoeba (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I believe there is a good degree of discernment by Scoop with what they choose or choose not to publish, just as much as they do with major NZ newspapers. The Getty image is just an indication of the conference that would have been either televised or printed in a reliable newspaper. That wasn't to prove notability as such. It was more for those who want to find out about it as I don't have the time at this moment. Karl Twist (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop is not a newspaper. This is an uneditorialised press release redirecting to 911truth.org, a conspiracy theory website. Wikipedia informs us "The website publishes a large number of submitted news and press releases due to their permissive policy." All of these links are already on the page anyway as they all lead to CSPAN which is in external links. Mramoeba (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having had some time to look at this, this is a clear delete. The organisation managed a handful of press mentions, none in mainstream sources, and the rest of this is primary, some of it disingenuously made to look secondary through the wording and reference landings (from article edit summary I removed the worst). In summary:

1) Primary: Own website, allowable for basic facts/descriptors only

2) Primary: Zogby market research was sponsored by Citizens Watch. This article is a summary of findings

3) Christian Science Monitor is generally considered reliable source, however this is a short article covering groups who submitted questions to the commission the adverts CW posted and quotes, there is no in depth coverage, in fact the only interpretation of CW by the journalist is "one of the groups observing the proceedings"

4) BBC is a mention, the entire article is 9 different reaction comments, no journalitic analysis or interpretation.

5) Abook which is not viewable. From the Google snippet I suspect this could very easily be another passing mention of their reaction to the report, as covered elsewhere.

6) Washington TIMES, wikipedia disputes reliability, "The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." There is no coverage of CW in it anyway, just a quote from Kyle Hence.

Mramoeba (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, and agreeing with User:Mramoeba, there are menitons, but fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I still stand by my keep vote. Because so much of the media is controlled by the like of Murdoch, searches need to be done in other areas. The Getty images pic that features April Gallup and Rosemary Dillard states they were at a 9/11 Citizens Watch press conference at the National Press Club. Was it on TV or in which papers? Anyway ..... But if it leans too much toward Delete then the history should be preserved and it should be re-directed to 9/11 Truth movement and a small section be created there. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 22 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I respect the guidelines at WP:NBOX, I think he does actually meet the overall WP:GNG. Coverage in multiple sources that isn't trivial and this is hardly a spam stub. I rather like it, it presents the facts and doesn't embellish. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Champion of the West Indies, significant coverage in Michael Anthony's book The Making of Port-of-Spain: Port-of-Spain in a World at War, 1939-1945. --Michig (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a copy of that book and it's apparently out of print. I did see that the Paria Publishing website says they don't publish books, but they do aid self-publishers. I have to question the reliability of the source and I see no way to verify the source or coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boxrec doesn't even show he fought for a West Indies title. Since he didn't turn pro until 1945 I'm surprised by the claim he received "significant coverage" in a book covering 1939-1945, though it is a local book of unknown reliability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NBOX, so let's look at the sources given for meeting WP:GNG. The Afro-American encyclopedia has 2 sentences--one that he was from Trinidad and the second says he became a professional boxer in 1945. The T&T Guardian article mentions him in passing as losing twice to one of the fighters they're discussing. The T&T Newsday article is his obituary, I can't access the "First Citizen Sports Foundation" (whatever that is) link, and the Kingston Gleaner mention is in the local sports section. Sorry, but I just don't see coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Impressive record in his own country - Gentle Daniel boxing record Karl Twist (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What impressive record? He won 1 of his 4 fights for the national light heavyweight title and that was the inaugural fight for that title between two first year professionals. That title was only fought for 7 times in history and he was in four of them. It was 27 years before another fight for that title after Gentle Daniel.[18] Talk about a minor title!Sandals1 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable boxer. There's nothing to show he meets WP:NBOX (see my comments above). Nobody has shown there's significant independent coverage from reliable sources to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Statistic articles, merge / redirect discipline articles. Stat articles are kept per consensus, discipline articles are redirected to the most appropriate section in the relevant tournament article. Where no such section existed, I have added in the headline stats from the forked article. Editors are encouraged to use page history to add anything additional that is relevant but are warned about excessive / unreferenced stat listing and giving undue weight to any one section Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2002 FIFA World Cup statistics

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

Following this AFD, I am nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason – WP:NOTSTATS. There is no other cases where statistics for individual tournaments have their own page. List of FIFA World Cup records is sufficient. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The FIFA World Cup is the biggest international football tournament there is. I think there is scope for a list of records and statistics from each one. – Pee Jay 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 'statistics' articles (as per PeeJay's rationale on coverage) but delete/merge the 'disciplinary record' ones, no need for a separate articles for that. Giant Snowman 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am straight down voting Keep for the statistics articles, however I think the disciplinary record articles are way too deep and excessive for wikipedia guidelines and inclined to go with delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Statistics pages should cover a fair amount of discipline information anyway. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all World Cup is the biggest international sporting event in the world larger than even Olympics in viewership.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep all all passes WP:NOTSTATS and FIFA World Cup is more important than others but can consider merging the disciplinary articles to the main statistic articles Hhkohh (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – I'm concerned that as these article stand at the moment, that they provide far too much statistical infomation, little to no prose, no context, and just about every stat is unreferenced – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeeJay2K3, though agree with GiantSnowman for merging the disciplinary articles to the main statistic articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reply Ianblair23 I often think some of these regular contributors of the football project vote with their heart. I often wonder if they bother reading the polices or not. For-instance Hhkohh saying keep because all the articles pass WP:NOTSTATS. Except that policy isn't a pass or fail policy, it's meant to explain what Wikipedia shouldn't have and can have. FIFA World Cup is considered a top rated subject and that would include the statistics so I would hardly call that an indiscriminate article. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete or merge disciplinary pages Sigh. These fail WP:NOTSTATS as they stand. But I'm voting "keep" because data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, and these pages could be improved to pass WP:NOTSTATS, especially the coaching sections. I don't think you can do that with the disciplinary stats, though. I used to buy specialised encyclopedias for this exact type of information, which is why I think it's both encyclopedic and improvable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statistics, merge disciplinary - Article 3 of WP:NOTSTATS says we can create a separate article for statistics, I think it means we should not have another page for disciplinary record. In my opinion, these information do not lack context or explanation, so they should be kept, and they usually are too massive to be merged into the main articles. Some other tournament articles which have less statistical details can include them and still be readable, but not FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro ones, unless we choose to remove a major part of these information. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Biggest soccer tournament there is, it's different than a continental competition. This isn't indiscriminate, it's clearly related to a very notable subject. Smartyllama (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statistics/merge disciplinary The stats pages provide a wide range of information about a major event. Many of these stats are excessively granular and could be excised though. The disciplinary stats are also more detailed than necessary and not an independent topic from the rest of the statistics. The By player table should be split into columns like the goalscorers (or we can use discretion to only list those with more than one). Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Béa

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

Currently fails WP:MUSICBIO, not enough sources as of now to establish notability. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple christian music reliable sources as shown in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Considering the in-article sources: New Release is a weak-fail of Sig Cov; CCM is purely an interview so fails Sig Cov, PRWeb obviously isn't independent/reliable. The Christian Beat is a good pair of sources, but is from the same source. Given that, New Release, I think a WK is appropriate, but a neutral or WD might also suit as it currently is. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on poor coverage. Both keep votes above cite the quality of The Christian Beat as a reliable source, but the article from that source basically paraphrases content from the About section of the subject’s own website ( https://www.laurenbeamusic.com/about/) mixed in with standard new release information. I'm not saying it isn’t third party coverage, but it does appear to be lazy in establishing anything other than what this subject has to say about herself. Investigating the website further, it appears to be a self-described “up and coming” non-professional volunteer effort with the goal to become an important voice in covering the Christian music scene, but as of now it appears to be mostly a venue for passing off rephrased press releases as reporting and volunteer reviews. Has it been source reviewed yet? If I’m wrong, I’ll consider changing my i-vote. CCM magazine, on the other hand, is a good source, but this coverage—an interview—isn’t. Other sourcing problems are pointed out by Nosebagbear (talk) above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ShelbyMarion: hi, Christian Beat is included in this list of christian music reliable sources Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, regatds Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I see The Christian Beat was entered as a reliable source on 16 September 2015 without any evidence of having first—-or since—undergone a source review. (A word search in the reliable sources discussions confirm this.) I’m still sticking with my delete vote; while the site may contain reliable information, it also seems to be indiscriminate in what they publish, adhering to their mission (per their description: “… to point you to music…”) of promoting anything and everything Christian music related. Considering this particular reference essentially rephrases content from the subject's website, regardless of a third parties involvement to me it doesn’t come across as a significant example of notable coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The account that created this page (Lyvcreative) seems to have only been created to promote this individual. This page is her only contribution on Wiki and the individual is not notable. Based on the account edit history I believe this is just an individual self promotiong. I vote Strong Delete. Theweekndeditor (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. N/C, but this article is going straight to BLP/N. It makes painful reading. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade

AfDs for this article:

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

Earlier the page was CREATED as Devyani Khobragade and nominated for deletion in 2013 and as per discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident The consensus at that time was clear that person fails WP:BIO notability as an individual however the incident was notble enough and therefore article was renamed and moved to Devyani Khobragade incident. I have gone through this article also, mostly it is news surrounding incident and publicity or limelight she got aftermath of Devyani Khobragade incident. I strongly feel as an individual she non notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:Too much detail also applies here hence Delete Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Devyani Khobragade was created on December 17, 2013. Later it was moved to Devyani Khobragade incident after being nominated for deletion. This article was recreated independently on January 8, 2014‎. --Auric talk 17:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article meets WP:GNG. In particular, this diplomat has been the subject of international journalism in many media sources for four unrelated scandals. I just restored the scandal content to this article which was recently deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - the controversy about her children passport and her posting are hardly encyclopedic information. The incident in US was notable enough and hence has been given her name as Devyani Khobragade incident. Also the Adarsh Housing Society Scam has many big politicians involved and there are many persons whom the flats were allotted apart from Khobergode. She was never party of FIR or investigation in the scam in fact other IAS officers like Jairaj Phatak were arrested and suspended (again WP:NOTNEWS) applied here. You have added back infos, which are just news stories, PLEASE SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Notability (events) AND Wikipedia:Too much detail, Wikipedia:Libel or much better essay @ Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Jethwarp (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to respond to proposals at the article's talk page, and maybe we can do that if this article passes. For a deletion nomination this content and especially the sources cited need to be in the article for review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:53, 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 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:04, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FreeHeadset.org

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. This appears to have been a short lived organisation and while there are a couple of refs they are basically launch publicity. I can’t find anything more recent to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NWEB, and it is also undersourced as well.Sheldybett (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article WP:SOAP OliverKianzo (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Centre for Human Rights

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

A non-profit that appears to be non-notable. Could not find sources to validate notability and the article itself is poorly sourced with some neutrality concerns. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google gave me eight different sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Rathfelder: - you can't just say google has references - you need to actually link to a couple of the best ones, even if you choose not to add them to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can. The question is "Is the organisation notable?", not "Is it properly referenced?".Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not believe that relisting this AfD means that I qualify as WP:INVOLVED since, extending it to NACs, an [editor] who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved. Thanks, (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Perdomo

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 01:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with at least two prominent roles in notable productions, namely Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (TV series) in main cast listed fourth, and Killed by My Debt as the leading actor, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306's argument. WP:NACTOR would seem to be satisfied - There's been sufficient of the TV series for it to count - it doesn't have to have concluded before it qualifies. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:NACTOR, specifically per Atlantic306's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At minimum a technical pass of WP:NACTOR (significant roles in two films that have WP articles; thus notable), but also has some other decent RS, and career is still on a strong upward trajectory, so would be a bit churlish to apply a WP:TOOSOON angle in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two notable roles Spiderone 15:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple other articles. Receives direct coverage, beyond mention, at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-on-tv-tuesday-may-29-8v528q0rf, https://deadline.com/2018/02/michelle-gomez-chance-perdomo-netflix-sabrina-the-teenage-witch-series-1202290637/ and https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/09/18/netflix-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-lgbt-pansexual/ thus meets the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 22 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) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of the Apocalypse (2009 film)

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

I did manage to find one review from a website that has been used as a reliable source in other film articles, but one source just doesn't cut it. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was renamed Apocalypse Female Warriors. [19] wearemoviegeeks.com is a reliable source for films. So with what you have, that makes two, so it passes WP:GNG Dream Focus 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two reviews given - WP:NFILM is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is not the strongest consensus that I've seen. But there does not appear to be any appetite for deletion and this has been relisted twice. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Grau

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

no indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Only reference is to a company that releases his records. Google searches not finding WP:significant coverage in third party sources. noq (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a rather notable individual in Venezuela as well as in a few circles in the recording industry. I just need to find a few more resources that prove his notability. If given a few more days I can find them.Lightning ride (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Grau recorded nine albums between 1974 and 1983... a series of "reworked" albums a couple of years ago returned him to the public consciousness after being forgotten for 30 years. The problem is that he is completely unknown outside of his native Venezuela, and almost all reliable sources are going to be in Venezuelan print media from decades ago, and nowhere else. I can't help here, but good luck to Lightning ride in trying to find RS. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five albums on London Records in the 1970s, satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 5. Coverage may be hard to find online, but it seems inconceivable that it doesn't exist. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 2 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) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Systemic bias/source availability arguments seem compelling. That aside, I think this might be an RS? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonick

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

Don't think this meets the WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. The only real one is the Forbes article but it is more about the investment in the start-up as being notable. However, open-minded on this, and regardless, this article is going to be put up for AfD eventually (as it is, at best, borderline), so might as well test now. thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noting here that there is a potential COI since the SPA account that created this article also tried to insert information about this company in at least 2 BLP pages that have since been reversed. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references all appear to publicity pieces. The Billboard ref is the only one that I questioned, but it's clear that it's coming from the same material as that of the very poor Forbes ref. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree it's promotional, but I was able to find in-depth coverage quickly, and in good sources. This Artnet article is quite good. Coupled with Forbes and Billboard, it's enough... unless someone wants to make the argument that it's all coverage of a single issue. At the very least some editing is required.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very clearly No - references must be intellectually independent. An article such as Artnet.com that relies pretty much exclusively on an interview with a company officer and on a Billboard reference which is also on the same style (promotional and relying exclusively on quotations/interview with company officers) fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, NCORP guidelines were tightened up last year specifically to exclude this type of churnalism HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is pretty much standard level 'startup gets funding' rewritten press-release type, which is not impressive. Artnet is just a bit better, as it cites WP:INTERVIEW from Billboard... plus is Artnet a sufficient-quality and high-profile source to warrant keeping this? I think one source is not sufficient. Nope, to me this is still WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Artnet is a good source. Check the front page, where there is much evidence of quality reporting. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are entirely promotional, the article provides no indications of why this company is notable. References fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails WP:SPIP, WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M). Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manky (video game)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manky (video game) (2nd nomination)

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

Public domain game with one primary source and one minor review. There's nothing here to support meeting notability guidelines. Dgpop (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M). Minor game with a lack of references to establish notability. However, the game does exist and is a valid search term. And as it is already on the master list of Commodore 64 games, a redirect there seems to make the most sense. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Afghan Airlines Flight 312

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

WP:NOTNEWS - article is about a commercial air flight that tipped over, slightly injuring six people Chetsford (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Per WP:AIRCRASH this should be a keep because it was a hull-loss (the aircraft was written-off) but I can't find any real evidence of significant, sustained coverage for this accident. Just the ASN listing and the AV Herald piece from 2014. With some more evidence of WP:SIGCOV I could flip to keep, but not with the present coverage. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DOesn't pass GNG. AIRCRASH is a well regarded essay - but still an essay. I did find this story (which differs from ASN - no injuries, no damage to the aircraft) - so I'm not sure how correct the ASN report is. Even if we accept the ASN report of 6 minor injuries and substantial damage (ASN itself doesn't support writeoff) - it doesn't pass AIRCRASH. And even if it were to be a hull loss (of the "too expensive to repair an old plane type") - of a 21 year old 737 - that's a bit umm - meh. AIRCRASH is a good essay - but it is a tad too binary - this is the sort of incident (if it passes V - which it doesn't here) - which is in the grey zone. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG,as per icewhiz.--Petebutt (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no coverage. Found this[20] it makes no difference. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NOTNEWS. Take your choice....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noteworthy for a stand-alone article, if YA-PIB is a hull-loss then it can be just included in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and nothing extraordinary about this incident such as an unusual cause. Doradafan (talk) 19:32, 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Huldisch

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

No evidence of notability. Draft moved directly to mainspace without review by its author. Several refs simply note her appointment. Nothing else hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I am in no way affiliated with the subject, just an art historian. Significant curatorial work makes this subject worthy of an article, in my opinion. Please see references that include NYTimes, artforum, and The Observer. --Wil540 art (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for deletion SIX MINUTES after it was moved to mainspace. What happened to WP:BEFORE C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article", and C3 "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag"? RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the speed of the nomination is a bit obscene. Velella, have you never heard of WP:BITE?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article appeared almost completely formed as a Draft 14 minutes before the nominations. The appearance of completely formed drafts is sometimes a cause for concern so I was doing my searches and finding nothing of significant notability only to find it booted straight from Draft to Mainspace with no review. I felt strongly that this was COI editing and possibly paid editing, and the weakness of the refs strongly suggested that this should be considered as to its appropriateness on Wikipedia. This was produced by an editor who has authored 13 articles, many about people at Whitney Museum of Art and most avoiding review. This is hardly the hallmark of a newbie. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh how some editors forget when they were pups or kits

the article creator's 1st edit ocurred on 18 Dec 2018 so has now been on WP for less than 7 weeks which in my books is a newbie (allbeit, one who creates well formed articles:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a couple of the sources in the article are OK, and I see many mentions that are more than passing in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the help ThatMontrealIP. I added a source and info from a NYMag article that goes more in depth about Huldisch.--Wil540 art (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This shows a number of books the person in question has authored, I don't know at first glance how significant they are, but it might be worth more investigation to see if they would help qualify for WP:NACADEMIC, which will take some time. As far as having a well-formed article, isn't that the whole purpose of the Sandbox? Using it is a positive. I personally have never built an article and had it reviewed prior to putting it in the mainspace. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added more reviews of exhibitions she has curated, and catalogue essays she has written. There is certainly non-trivial coverage and reviews in multiple, independent, reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RebeccaGreen, nice edit. Would you mind looking at this another article I wrote on a curator that is also flagged? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Y._Lew. Please go ahead and edit/give your two cents if you so desire. thanks again --Wil540 art (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Oakman

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

Per source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Reliable source coverage is limited to minor passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: Why? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article seem to be used. User:Lucifero4

Thanks. I'm not sure what "used" means, although a high-traffic article, or articles with numerous incoming links may indicate a topic for which large numbers of people seek encyclopedic information. In this case there are several incoming links, but only as a result that Oakman is included on the Template:CofCApostles template. Regarding pageviews, before this AfD the page was averaging about 30 a month, or one a day, just barely more than what a page will receive from "Random article" traffic. I'm not giving a !vote here because I'm not sure he isn't notable in the same way that U.S. State legislators are notable (may only have local coverage, but actions demonstrably affect large numbers of people,) but although I appreciate the position I can't agree with it. However, I appreciate the explanation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to show notabable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For RLDS a good place to look for sources is the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, and indeed, Oakman's role in the European church leading into WWII is discussed in "National Socialists and Social Idealists: The RLDS Church in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945", R. Ben Madison, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 16 (1996), pp. 15-30, and less extensively (though as "a towering figure in RLDS history") in "Forgotten Outpost: The Reorganized Latter Day Saints of Poland" by the same author in the same journal, Vol. 13 (1993), pp. 31-50. He's mentioned briefly in several other articles on RLDS history, though mostly in one paragraph or a few sentences. There's also the entire biography of Oakman listed in the sources, though of course one might dismiss that as not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some sources and expanded/reworked the article a bit. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced added by Bakazaka (Madison, Parker) meet WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 8 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) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Girls: The Movie

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

None of the actors and actresses are famous outside of the internet, and only one has their own Wikipedia article. Plus, there are not many sources included in this article to show a strong sense of notability. Andise1 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage in reliable sources for notability. http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-brat-youtube-funding-20180718-story.html (Los Angeles Times) and https://decider.com/2018/07/19/chicken-girls-the-movie-youtube-stream-it-or-skip-it/ (Decider) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Also, per WP:ATD, it could be merged/redirected to Brat (digital network) if there's consensus that the movie is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per Eastmain. I would be ok with a merge as well if others agree. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small articles do not have to be deleted. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone article as it has coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion indicates the subject currently lacks sufficient coverage that is independent and significant. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín De Hoyos

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet the bar of WP:BASIC. Primary sources, passing mentions, passing quotations and name checks do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE searches have provided no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete – I checked a few Mexican sources and they only mention him in passing. No in-depth coverage from third-party (non-LDS affiliated) sources. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His leadership of Latter-day Saint opposition to the redefinition of marriage in Mexico made major headlines in multiple locations. See here [21], here from the Religion News service [22], the article from the Salt Lake Tribune already linked to in the article. Here is a very biased against De Hoyos source that leads with a half-page photo of him [23]. This is multiple locations, multiple coverage. We have multiple sources mentioning him and his actions. This is clearly enough to pass any reasonable reading of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – The sources presented above demonstrate that this is a WP:BLP1E situation, whereby the coverage is all about one event, specifically, Hoyos being against gay marriage. All of the articles linked above are from June 1-2, 2016. Regarding content in the sources presented directly above:

[24] – contains some content, but I feel that it falls short of significant coverage. There's a quotation, there's a mention of where the quote occurred, a mention of the LDS Church asking local bishops to parrot Hoyos' comment, and a mention that Hoyos "encouraged members of the church to join family and religious advocacy groups who oppose same-sex marriage." That's it.
[25] – A single passing mention, not much more than a name check: "Signed by the Area Authority president, Benjamin De Hoyos, and his two counselors, Paul B. Pieper and Arnulfo Valenzuela, the statement exhorted Mexico’s Mormons to push government leaders to “promote those measures designed to strengthen the family and to maintain it as the fundamental unit of society." This is not significant coverage. The subject signed something; no other information about the subject is presented.
[26] – Provides marginally significant coverage. So, this is one source.

However, the fact remains that this is a WP:BLP1E situation, meaning that the subject is not notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep. I may come up with other reasons later, but it should count for something that Elder De Hoyos has spoken thrice in General Conference. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DavidLeeLambert (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

A primary source stating that a subject has given speeches does not confer notability on English Wikipedia. Primary sources are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, community consensus is that LDS leaders have to meet WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Most of the sources in the article are not independent (lds.org, MormonNewsroom.org, Church News, Liahona, Ensign, the Almanac that says Deseret News on the label but is actually assembled by official Church News staff) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). Search finds mostly passing mentions and routine coverage (e.g. this person was at the temple opening), plus some quotes reprinted from church press releases. However, there is also coverage of this subject's leadership in opposing the constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico. (Note that I have removed the "traditional definition of marriage" POV from the article that did not reflect the cited source's characterizations.) But, as the nominator notes above, that simply makes this a WP:BLP1E issue, as the individual is otherwise low-profile and the event itself was not even significant enough to merit a mention in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Mexico article. So, even though some coverage exists, WP:BLP1E policy trumps guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source, from a non-LDS source, says De Hoyos is the highest LDS Authority in South America. Whether that's true or not, it attests to notability and is well outside the same-sex marriage timeframe. jj (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC) https://www.eltribuno.com/salta/nota/2018-9-25-19-4-0--urtubey-se-reunio-con-autoridades-de-la-iglesia-de-jesucristo-de-los-santos-de-los-ultimos-dias — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A matter, though, is that religious subjects do not have any presumed notability on English Wikipedia. Also, the source you provided is only a one sentence, passing mention that states, "There was also Elder Benjamín De Hoyos, member of the Seventy and highest authority in South America." This is not significant coverage, which is needed to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject is non-notable and fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 15:11, 24 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) 00:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I respectfully disagree with Northamerica1000: this doesn't even rise to BLP1E. There is no significant coverage of the subject independent of the church in which he has a leadership position, hence failure of WP:BIO. The leadership position does not by itself imply notability. Lagrange 613 10:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Orick

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

I suspect this fails WP:NPOL, although I'm not very familiar with US politics below national level. If this does end up being deleted then the contents of Category:Dayton City Council members might need to be trawled. Sitush (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, Ab Orick, lol. I grew up in Dayton, and Abner Orick was a big deal at one time in that town, IIRC got a ton of local coverage because he considered himself a government watchdog and Dayton's political scene was full of cronyism. He may actually be notable. I'll see if I can find some sources. valereee (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I by no means exhausted the coverage; if anyone disagrees that notability has been proved, I can do more, but IMO I think he probably does qualify. The coverage is almost all local with some coverage in the rest of the state, but that's to be expected. He was a character, but not to the point he attracted national coverage. valereee (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sourcing but I'm still not getting it. I don't think local coverage counts for much when it comes to GNG and I still don't see how he meets NPOL. If we let this through, there will be scope for tens of thousands of people in India whom we at present routinely reject. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the sources meet "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ? I guess I'd say if there are tens of thousands of people in India who are being written about multiple times in-depth over many years in the primary dailies of their midsize cities, they might be notable. valereee (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying how the guidelines have been interpreted in the past. It is also why quite a few articles by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have been deleted. I really don't give a crap about US politics but I do dislike systemic bias and the US gets away with murder on that score. I'm not trying to pull an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line here, btw: local politicians get local coverage, it's not usually thought of as being a big deal. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you could mention probably a dozen other Dayton city commissioners and I'd say you're right, they aren't notable. I'd be able to do a search and find the only coverage they got were bare mentions of their wins or how they voted or single quotes in an article about an issue. I'm not arguing that being city commissioner (or the normal coverage that gets you) makes you notable. I'm arguing that in this case, a city commissioner of a midsize city might actually be notable because he got an abnormal amount of coverage. valereee (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm in the UK and can't see many US news sources, even though I see the results listings. Thus, I can't comment on their content, merely on what tends to happen: the "local heroes" type of situation doesn't usually wash at AfD. (Or "local baddy", as it sounds like it may be in this case.) - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clipped all those articles -- you can't see the clippings? Maybe I did it wrong -- I only recently figured out it was even possible ETA: I don't think he was necessarily a local hero, although certainly the people in his blue-collar white east dayton neighborhoods thought so. And definitely not a baddy, he was well-intentioned. He was just a colorful character lol valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw the links were for newspapers.com and I know I can't see them even though I can get results listings. However, I've just tried the first one and it is visible to me - I've not seen the clipping thing before but perhaps that does make a difference. Anyway, let's just see what other people think. Hero/celebrity/baddy/whatever - he's of local interest and local interest doesn't usually make for encyclopaedic interest in a worldwide context. Perhaps it should, and it would suit me just fine, but I'm just telling you how I've seen it play out in the past. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, since you're not convinced I'll keep working! Like I said, I'd by no means exhausted the sources :) valereee (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't gone through all of the sources to establish whether they're enough to make him special or not — and to be honest, I'm not actually going to, so I'm not going to "vote" either way. (Also, Valereee is making a sincere attempt to improve it, so I don't want to prejudge the results of the effort.) But I just wanted to point out the following: when it comes to city councillors, we do indeed normally require that either (a) they serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) they can be referenced to a volume and depth and range of coverage that makes them a special case over and above most other city councillors. Simply showing that some local coverage exists is not normally enough, because local coverage of city councillors always exists — so we do indeed normally require some evidence of nationalizing coverage before we deem most city councillors to be notable enough, because if all you had to do to get a city councillor over the bar was show a handful of local coverage, then every city councillor could always show that and thus every city councillor would always be notable.
What I did want to say, though, is that in light of the above discussion I've reviewed the contents of the Dayton city councillors category — some of them do actually get over NPOL on other grounds (e.g. going on to serve in the state legislature), but there are indeed a few who have no credible evidence of notability at all, so I'm already taking on the task of listing those articles for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bearcat: Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. The sources are all local to the Dayton area with the exception of two. Akron is far removed from Dayton, and while not incredibly in-depth, it might help with GNG. The other is Cincinnati, again not tied to Dayton, but that is the briefest of bare mentions. Therefore it doesn't pass GNG, NPOL, or any other criteria I can think of to keep this well-written article. Dangnabbit. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 8 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) 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a locally notable city councilperson. Lots of coverage in the local papers, but fails WP:NPOL, and the coverage is basically what you would see for any councilperson who serves a long time without really doing anything of note. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. A well written and sourced article on an interesting subject. However, all RS I found were from the Dayton area, which means I cannot see how this can meet WP:GNG (and per Bearcat above). I'm afraid it must be delete. Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good enough for me, thanks all! valereee (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listonic

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

Most of the sources are PR and not independant Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete unambiguous promo, fails WP:NORG, the listed awards are insignificant/nottotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthistorian1977: We added also independent sources - book and academic article.

@Staszek Lem: Listonic is an established and well-rated app that has been available to the public for the last 9 years. For more information, please find us on Google Play and Apple App Store, or visit our website www.listonic.com. As we're an established company with a product that has a worldwide reach, we think that we would benefit from a presence on Wikipedia in English, alongside our listing on the Polish version of the website which has already been accepted by Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listonic)." ````Kart8989

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources have been added, so those should be examined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: It seems it's been covered in scientific publications https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?start=0&q=listonic&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 quite often. As it's used in serious articles, not only PR ones, and it's made for worldwide audience, I think readers would benefit from more info about about it here. Also, the style of writing is ok, doesn't sound salesy ````Alemale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamale (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Kart8989 and Alamale are single-purpose accounts with likely conflicts of interest. The article itself reads very much like an advertisement, padded with non-notable awards. I haven't reviewed the sources completely, but the ones I've looked at are either unreliable or do not cover the app in-depth. I'm holding off on a !vote for now, but I'm pretty sure this will fail WP:NCORP. – Teratix ₵ 07:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Town Center

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

More malls that fail GNG. all WP:MILL and nothing substantial Praxidicae (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Anything on Google are either local news or passing mentions. –eggofreason^talk 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Non-notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, more of a mega centre than a shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a quotidian subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a borderline WP:GNG candidate. I think this is a fairly common strip mall of minor to no notability based on the evidence at hand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 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) 02:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LITIengine

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources, with zero hits at all with WP:VG/S's custom search. Zero news on Google, can't really seem to find even unreliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to fail WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems only a piece of paper. User:Lucifero4.
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barks Babes & Bros

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

Not a notable event. Local coverage of a fundraiser for rescue dogs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this possibly be merged to Salty Dog Paddle? – The Grid (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been mentioned in magazines and draw attention of Dog lovers and celebrities, so I thought it is a good contribution but I leave it to experts to decide. Thanks 'The Grid' for this idea. BananasReborn (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleaned up text and added sources to meet Wikipedia acceptable standards. I believe it reads to be a substantive subject now. ClintonCimring (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, article history shows that Clintoncimring, who has a highly-focused editing history around Salty Dog Paddle, made the recent changes to this article. ClintonCimring has an interesting SPI/COIN history, though. Which one are you? Bakazaka (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good candidate for CheckUser. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. The sources are either primary (Salty Dog Paddle site), routine local announcements (Palm Beach Post announcement, duplicated for effect), local admag photo galleries (Jupiter), actual news releases (Newswire) or about guests but not the actual event (Maxim, IMDb). It's promotion. The article is promotion. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If someone wants to add non-promotional info to the Salty Dog Paddle article they can do that, but there isn't encyclopedic content here to merge, so there's no good reason to keep the editing history. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 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) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a good cause, but that has no bearing on notability. Promotional, and lacking in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Jmertel23 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GNG is our bottom line and I find the argument that the subject fails that to be persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naresuan F.C.

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

Fails [27]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Sportsfan 1234: WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline about players. This is an article about a club. Can you please specify a valid reason for deletion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wanted to link [28]. It has been corrected above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and no indication they have ever played in the proper rounds of the national Cup (which is the usual barometer for football teams). Giant Snowman 11:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says they played in the Thai FA Cup in 2018, it would appear they do pass that standard. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in 2018 Thai FA Cup in the first round.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:FOOTYN—which is a project advice essay and not a Wikipedia guideline—notwithstanding, the only piece of in-depth coverage I could identify is this SuperSubThailand article. All of the mentions in mainstream media reliable sources appear to be routine coverage of the tournaments, and do not cover the subject in detail. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul_012's analysis of the coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Smartyllama and Pharaoh of the Wizards: - I presume you have located independent reliable sources which verify the claim of notability made in the article (ie that they've played in the National Cup) that you've selfishly decided not to share with us? If so please do so I can re-consider. GiantSnowman 10:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason the Thai League website is blocked by my company firewall, but supposedly this is the match report from their first round cup game. That took me about two seconds to find by clicking through the articles and finding sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The match seems to me to be reliably sourced at the cup article, is there any reason why we can't take these sources as confirmation that the team has taken part in a national competition? Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are primary sources, we can use them for WP:V but when there's evidence the team doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG it makes this a difficult case, especially since searching in Thai language results is more difficult than searching in a language with Latin script. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 5 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)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my above assessment, fails the WP:GNG. WP:FOOTYN is not a guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricycle Records

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

~~See talkpage ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Non-notable company (tagged >3 years). It has always been little more than self-pronouncements and lists of releases. A {{db-corp}} was declined as having a list of notable associated performers is a potential claim of notability, but notability is not inherited. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, but record labels are known for the product they release, and by those releases their impact on musical culture. That said, I'm not convinced this label has a significant roster of notable artists. The Union Trade may be notable, but the label was started by that band, so in and of itself having this band on its roster does not help establish its notability. The Stripmall Architecture article does not mention the article at all, and the album mentioned in the Tricycle Records article is unsourced, so it fails WP:V. The Blacks (band) also does not mention the label, and likewise their entries on the Tricycle article are unreferenced. Everyone Is Dirty at least features that they are on Tricycle Records, but I'm not seeing by the references that this band is notable. Therefore there is one notable band, directly tied to the label. It therefore not "one of the more important independent labels" by WP:NMUSIC #5. An effort to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources revealed only directory listings. The label therefore fails WP:GNG as well insofar as I can tell. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:55, 25 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) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Lucifero4
Comment. This is the best coverage I found. Local and not particularly in-depth. The label seems to have local significance, but I'm not sure there's enough to support an article. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps US Attorneys should be notable, but the sources to show it seem to be lacking in this instance. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Christensen

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

Doubtful that being a United States Attorney confers notability; certain that being only an acting one doesn't. Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being US attorney, especially for a district like that of Utah, in which the person covers all operations of enforcing federal law for a district with 3 million inhabitants is clearly a sign of notability. This applies as much to acting US attorney's as those who are regularly nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the press coverage? The newspaper article "Triumvirate of women take lead in federal law enforcement in Utah" says she's the first woman to hold that position, but that's the only mention she gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, can't find anything useful apart from a couple of short announcements of her appointment, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: United States Attorney links its U.S. Attorneys offices to the District Court articles. Only some of these articles list U.S Attorneys, and those I've seen don't provide any biographical information, and are partially bluelinked 1, 2. Ideally there'd be a standardised treatment of U.S. Attorneys. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:59, 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) 00:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage causes the subject to fail WP:BIO. I suspect fully confirmed U.S. Attorneys ought to be considered notable, but that would not necessarily apply to those filling the role on an acting basis. Lagrange 613 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply being a US Attorney does not confer notability by the job title alone. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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