Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 June	5 June >

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Davis (singer)

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

She does not qualify for notability, almost all of her "references" are from her work, record promoters, etc. TiberiasTiberias (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page was not fully delsorted, nom is indeffed as a sock, and deletion is about notability, (WP:NOTCLEANUP). My quick opinion is she fails the GNG, though.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, She does not meet GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV of her. Sources in the article are all of quite poor quality (ex. self-published). Newshunter12 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Meddy

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

Fails WP:Notability guideline. Note that this article is declared paid editing, which is relevant as supporting evidence that many of the refs are paid advertorials. I spent a long time examining all of the refs in the article and detailing them below, to save everone else the work. I find none qualify as independant reliable signficant coverage. I also searched for additional sources and found no useful ones. That search may have suffered from the fact that I was unable to determine "Coach Meddy"'s actual name! The fact that his actual name appears in NONE of the twelve refs is further evidence of the cookie-cutter paid advertorial nature of nearly all refs here.

List of sources and analysis collapsed for convenience

timeoutdubai.com
It is not relevant whether the site is Reliable. Meddy receives passing mention in two sentences. Meddy is not even the main subject of either sentence. Worthless for establishing Notability.
foxsportsasia.com
Appears to be Reliable, however Meddy receives a one-sentence passing mention. Worthless for establishing Notability.

I believe every source below is an over-the-top paid advertorial, almost certainly all written by the same author. Nearly all of the sources are websites with tiny "staff", no reputation for anything, and either explicity state that they carry paid advertorials or are rampant with blatant paid advertorials.

telegraphstar.com
Not Reliable. Explicitly carries paid advertorials. Their advertize page states: "Advertorial Guest Posting Method : We are publishing your informational / advertorial articles in our website, news articles".
newsblaze.com
Not Reliable. Explicitly carries paid stories. Their contact page states: "Done For You Media Exposure Program Outline ... Press Release, Followup interviews, Followup stories and social followup."
thriveglobal.com
Not Reliable. Explicitly carries paid advertorials. Their media partnerships page states: "Custom-branded packaging and placement in our high-impact editorial content."
arizonadailyregister.com
Not Reliable. Author is explicitly a paid-content marketer. At the bottom of the article About the Author states "Shane is a cryptocurrency journalist and an ICO writing consultant at The Written Craft content service." Going to The Written Craft, he states "This is where I offer my blockchain content writing and copywriting services... I’m a certified content marketer."
kathmandutribune.com (there is currently an open AFD for this site)
Not Reliable. Tiny staff and invites article submissions. The about page states the site is run by two people, plus two foreign correspondents. Also the contact page states: "Kathmandu Tribune welcomes submissions of op-eds and articles on any topic for publication in online." I could find no explicit statement whether payment would help get an article onto the website. However I think the "article" answers this for itself.
TGDaily.com
Not Reliable. I can't find explicit advertizing info, but it looks like just about every article in the Health section is a paid ad.
- Over-the-top advertorial for "FaceTite" with link to clinic to make an appointment.
- How-to-improve-your-sleep-quality with link to buy Marijauna-oil and stating "You can also get some great deals on these products".
- How-to-avoid-addiction-and-live-a-healthy-life sending readers to buy a SoberLink product.
- What-is-tartar-and-how-do-you-control-it which of course sends readers to "Lanes & Associates, reputable and experienced dentistry in Durham".
- How-can-i-prevent-my-hemorrhoids-from-getting-worse which sends readers to pristyncare.com to buy laser surgery.
- How-ehr-software-improves-medical-practices with a link to buy Electronic Medical Records software and which says "They have achieved these goals with their EHR software, specifically so you can achieve your goals for your practice. Are you ready to get the most out of your medical practice with an EHR?"
oneworldherald.com
Not Reliable. Same issue as TGDaily. Spotchecking articles turned up rampant blatant avdertorials / product links. I only need to cite one of their "articles" to make the point:
- Study-reveals-penis-extension-procedures-are-risky-and-often-do-not-work and the "article" instead suggests "Most of the men today are even going for sexual enhancement pills or sprays, from websites like creamandspray.com, which give that high feeling till the time you really need it." How cliche, an advertorial for ~~penis pills~~ penis cream.
- I also found a submission form "OneWorldHerald.com - Submit Your News. Fill the form given below to send your news to us. We will publish it on OneWorldHerald.com." The story submission form has been bot-spammed to hundreds of online discussion forums.
newdaylive.com
Not Reliable. Same issue as TGDaily and oneworldherald. This article tells you where to buy the best buy Marijauna-oil, and this OMG-advertorial tells you what company to call to have a docor come to your home and hydrate you via IV. You know, for people who are ~~too rich~~ too busy to hydrate by... actually drinking beverages. The ad article says the service is available in "29 metropolitan markets in the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain". Sorry Canadians, you'll have to actually drink your beverages by mouth. Swallowing counts as exercise now.
kivodaily.com
The cited article was posted by Dillon Kivo, listed as Editor-In-Chief of kivodaily. Guess what that means? It means Dillon Kivo SELFPUBLISHed the content on his his personal website. However one of the key criteria of Wikipedia guidelines for a source to qualify as Reliable is that it subjects content to responsible editorial review. SELFPUBLISHed content, Not Reliable.
freepressjournal.in
This appears to be the website of an actual paper newspaper in India. I'll invite anyone else to comment on the quality of the source. However the content itself is a blatant advertorial and obviously Not Reliable. I believe almost anyone who has actually read the sources up to this point should be able to recognize that the text of this source has been written by the same over-the-top author.

Alsee (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very good analysis of the sources by Alsee. I had (independently) come to the same conclusion: the citations are advertorials, published in unreliable sources, for the purpose of falsely claiming notability of for the subject. Vexations (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undeclared paid editor paid to advertise. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uplift Universe species

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

Unsourced article that excessively details the particulars of a novel series. Fails WP:GNG since there is no third-party coverage of this in reliable sources. Fails WP:LISTN since the species are not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fails MOS:REALWORLD. I did find Contacting Aliens: An Illustrated Guide to David Brin's Uplift Universe in a BEFORE, which does not add to the notability of this article since it's a companion book by the novels' author. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced, overly detailed fancruft. Reyk _YO! 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article is not supported by sources Alex-h (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Dhungana

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

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

Per WP:GNG. Two legitimate sources mention the subject. THT and TKP. THT also mentions Mahesh Paudyal and the photo there was also taken by Mahesh. TKP article is a puff piece written by Mahesh Paudyal. Mahesh Paudyal also wrote another puff piece on him in his personal blog. It was part of a concerted effort to get each other on wikipedia. There was further evidence in edit history of Mahesh Paudyal's page which has since been deleted. This page was created and mostly contributed to by Nepalwrites and this is all that Nepalwrites ever contributed to. I have searched for this person with all search terms I could think of, in Roman as well as Devanagari script. ~~Finally, a fallacious argument: Nor have I or anyone I know of ever heard of him (I should as a resident compatriot).~~ Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Notability guidelines. Thehimalayantimes[1] is a one sentence passing mention. (The author very sloppily and unprofessionally duplicated that sentence, which would also raise obvious questions of the reputability and editorial oversight of the source.) Kathmandupost[2] has more substantial coverage, but it's apparently written by one of his university teachers raising significant independence/COI concerns. The other sources in the article are not independent. I also found myrepublica.nagariknetwork,[3] but it's a passing mention, I'm not sure of the quality of the source, and it doesn't help that it's a blatantly promotional event. I searched and was unable to find any other Independent Reliable sources to support Notability. I don't know if there is some local language spelling of his name, but if some one pings me with a another version of the name I'd be happy to search on that as well. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Alsee. The sources in this article are all either useless or of sketchy value. It therefore fails WP:GNG and the WP:SPA COI issue with the creator means it should be uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madrat and Chiko

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

Notable?. Possible WP:TOOSOON Ceethekreator (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three pages of Ghits are YouTube videos which doesn't mean much but it shows that they don't perform in English but in some other language which we can guess is Swahili since they're from Uganda. It would be important to evaluate if they have coverage in Swahili-language publications. They do have a bit of coverage in local English-language media (and of course, if they perform in Uganda in Swahili, that's all we'll get) as shown in the sources provided in the article and others such as this and this. All in all, I guess I'm a Weak keep for now. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pichpich.Tamsier (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. Also falls under WP:TOOSOON. Based on the available sources, this duo is not notable, but may become notable in the future. That sources may exist elsewhere in a different language and could be found at some vague future point is not a reason to keep this article now, as that is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article fails on the merits now, which is the only thing that matters. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally, I'd lean towards closing a discussion like this as merge, per WP:ATD. But User:Newshunter12's comment convinced me otherwise. No sources means no WP:V, so there's nothing to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Carter

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

The only references I can find are to press releases, and I can't find any evidence this company meets WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the AmeriMark Direct article. AmeriMark bought them up in February. Since then, they've received a small amount of press coverage regarding store closings and a class action regarding wiretap allegations. Orville1974 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG since it is unsourced and sources found online by the nominator were just press releases. I understand the above two editors' desire to merge this content, but the lack of any sources whatsoever in this article means this content is worthless, so there is no point in sending it somewhere else. If someone desires, they can just find those press releases and try to expand that other article on their own. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No indication of notability for the list as a subject. RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACM-W chapters

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

Brochure article. Should be merged into ACM-W Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to ACM-W per nom. No need for this to be a standalone article. Marquardtika (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think a list of chapters would be appropriate in the main article either. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate list. ACM is one of the premier world-wide computing organizations and ACM-W represents a substantial number of members in a large organization. Merging the list into the main ACM-W page would unnecessarily complicate the page. When reviewing [reasons for deletion], it doesn't meet the criteria for deletion: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
Redundant or otherwise useless templates
Categories representing overcategorization
Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Merging growing lists into the main page would not clarify the information or make it more accessible. Instead, the list needs to be updated to include additional information about this notable organization. We could definitely use more help getting the article completed.Cypherquest (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the independent evidence that these chapters are notable in their own right?Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. All chapters appear non-notable therefore the article is not suitable for merging either. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTDIR Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Remember the policy: the notability of a list does not depend on the notability of each item of the list, rather, the set of items must meet the notability requirements. Thus, for this page to remain, we need significant coverage of the set of ACM-W chapters in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, outside of the organization's website and website's belonging to the individual chapters, I cannot find many sources. The few sources I can find [1] [2] speak more to the notability of the ACM-W than of this list. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the point that notability is not inherited is fair, Doncram's keep argument also mentions that there are substantial-looking sources. And that can be a evidence of notability. Since nobody has contested that point, keep it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Agnes-by-the-Lake Episcopal Church (Algoma, Wisconsin)

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

WP:MILL parish church. Page is largely unsourced and contains unencyclopedic content (prevailing legends, etc.). Sections that are sourced are sourced from affiliated sources, failing WP:RS. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic church designed by major architect Richard Upjohn, "high Anglican" style, built in 1891 which is old/historic by U.S./Wisconsin standards. Substantial-looking sources stated at end, though article could be tagged towards encouraging use of in-line citations. Obviously worthy of National Register of Historic Places listing, though many churches choose not to accept listing. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also by the way a new editor interested in the topic emerged after AFD started, and added interesting historic quotation from 1877:

"THE NEW EPISCOPAL CHURCH - We understand that nearly enough has been subscribed to ensure the erection of the Episcopal church. It is proposed to build of brick, suitable in size and form to the anticipated needs of the community, Gothic in style, with symetrical spire, etc. Plan executed by a prominent New York architect are expected soon. The edifice when completed will be an attractive, convenient, and comfortable house of worship, and an ornament to the village. It is intended to be complete, it ready for occupancy free from debt. The title will vest in the Trustees of the diocese until a church shall be organized, when it will be held by the Wardens and Vestrymen of the church."^[1]

References

^ The Ahnapee Record, The Ahnapee Record (August 30, 1877). "The New Episcopal Church". The Ahnapee Record.

Which the deletion nominator removed asserting COI, unproven. Seems like an interesting, valid contribution to me, and i definitely do not like to see the appearance of potential bullying/edit-warring by a deletion-nominator as if to try to "win" an AFD. See Talk page of the article.--Doncram (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the username “Stagnesalgoma” implied a potentially paid COI, which I put a message on the user’s talk page about. I was trying to maintain the integrity of the article by abstaining from paid COI edits, not trying to “win” an AfD. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 11:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way i see indication at the Richard Upjohn article that the church was built "1879, burned 1884, replica constructed 1891". Upjohn is hugely important, by the way, and photo of this work is included/featured in wikipedia article about him. This may have been one of his last works. --Doncram (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I frequently vote to delete church articles (much as I might like to keep them all), but this gets over the hurdle for keeping: notable architect; apparently an early local centre for High Church episcopalianism. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Upjohn connection.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Richard Upjohn is very notable, and this is an example of his work. Church itself is historic. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the work of a notable architect it is of historical interest and should be included in my view, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Blumpf (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answernet

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

I'm seeing no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not have WP:SIGCOV. The trivia section at the bottom of the article sums it up. Orville1974 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has agreed to draftify, and no other suggestion has been made. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Information Technology (USA)

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

Unreferenced, and lacking in useful content. Merge it into NAF (non-profit organization)? Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There are five governing academies at NAF (non-profit organization). Three of them have thorough articles. This one and the Draft:Academy of Hospitality and Tourism (I already moved it to draftspace) do not. There is a wealth of information out there, it just needs to make its way into these two articles before it gets brought back out to the main space. Orville1974 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cities by average temperature. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of European cities by temperature

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

Redundant to List of cities by average temperature. Interstellarity T 🌟 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cities by average temperature per WP:CFORK. There is still the issue of a lack of a clear inclusion criteria in the target article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Don't see much point to keeping a redirect, unlikely search term but whatever. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_cities_by_average_temperature#Europe, with Delete as a close second. The list is redundant and needs to go. I suggest redirect because the article has existed for two years. It's possible there are external links pointing at the page. Redirects are cheap, and this is one of the standard reasons to retain a redirect. Alsee (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. the page is getting around 50-100 pageviews per day. I think this reinforces my stated rationale for making it a redirect. Alsee (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the aforementioned list Seasider91 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. The draft can be found at Draft:Cuco (musician). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuco (musician)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a person who does not yet have any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are a viral video on YouTube, and that he just signed to a record label a few weeks ago -- but having views on social media is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and getting signed to a label is not an instant notability pass for a musician who has not yet released any recorded music on said label. And for sourcing, what we have is one short blurb supporting the signing, one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being written about in the third person, and just one piece that's actually substantive enough to count as a data point toward NMUSIC #1. No prejudice against recreation in the future when he actually has a hit single for NMUSIC #2 and/or two full-length albums for NMUSIC #5 under his belt, but he's not entitled to already have an article in advance of actually achieving anything that would actually pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He's got multiple articles about him in mainstream venues. it's not up to wikipedia to decide whether someone's accomplishments are notable. We just report on whether people have been declared notable by the mainstream press. Cuco clearly has been.NoahB (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are lots more articles about him:

https://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/cuco-who-is https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k945v/cuco-is-las-new-romantic-and-hes-only-18 https://tealmagazine.com/articles/interview-with-cuco

Again, the press thanks he's worth talking about. It's 2019; releasing recorded music on an official label shouldn't be the bar for notability now, if it ever was. NoahB (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: NoahB (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Releasing music on an official label is not the only way that a musician can become notable enough for a Wikipedia article; there have been artists who released their music independently, but still got over other NMUSIC criteria with it anyway. But for an artist who has signed to a major label, the release of some actual music on that label is still a base requirement, and merely signing does not constitute a free notability pass in and of itself for a musician who has released absolutely nothing under that contract yet. Musical notability for Wikipedia's purposes requires some form of measurable accomplishment, such as having a hit single or releasing a number of albums or touring, and is not automatically extended to every musician who merely exists but has no quantifiable achievements to measure against NMUSIC at all. "It's 2019" is not a valid argument against the existence of notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we've got multiple major mainstream news sites doing extended profiles of him, and the existence of a seven figure record deal is notable in itself. You don't think the person should be notable; mainstream sites like NPR and Rolling Stone and Vice disagree. You think there shouldn't be coverage unless someone has released music on a label; again, major mainstream sites disagree.I still don't see why it's Wikipedia's job to erase artists who have been covered in mainstream outlets because we think they don't deserve the attention or some such.NoahB (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "there is not enough substance to say about him for a Wikipedia article to be warranted yet" is not the same thing as saying that he somehow doesn't "deserve any attention" — TOOSOON does not mean "never", it just means "not yet". The very reason we have notability standards for musicians, which measure quantifiable achievements and not just verification that the musician exists, is precisely that we don't want to just have to keep an article about every single musician who exists on earth — we want to keep articles about musicians who have achieved notable things in their careers, not just everybody who merely aspires to. Even Beyoncé, in fact, was once an aspiring musician who would not have qualified for an article yet if Wikipedia had existed at the time — once she did achieve something noteworthy, obviously that would have changed, but before she had actually achieved anything would have been TOOSOON.
Signing to a record label is not a Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself: NMUSIC only invokes record labels in the context of releasing music on the label, and does not extend an automatic inclusion freebie on the basis of merely signing a contract. Lots of artists in history have signed major label contracts, but then gotten dropped before they actually accomplished anything on that label: so being on a major label is only relevant to musical notability insofar as it actually results in albums, singles and/or concert tours, and merely signing the contract is not an instant pass to notability all by itself.
And as for the sources: Q&A interviews like your NPR, Complex and Teal Magazine links, in which the subject is speaking about himself in the first person, are not support for notability. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources — but to count as support for his basic notability in the first place, a source has to represent other people writing or speaking about him in the third person. Very short blurbs, similarly, are not support for notability: they can, again, be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has been already covered off by stronger sources, but to count as support for his basic notability a source has to be substantive and not just a short blurb. As of right now, the only source we actually have that is both substantive and third person is the Rolling Stone "how a band geek became a heartthrob" — but one substantive source is not enough to claim that a musician passes NMUSIC #1 in lieu of actually achieving anything relevant to NMUSIC #2-12.
I said right from the beginning that there was no prejudice against recreating the article at a later date once he's actually achieved something relevant to our notability criteria for musicians, like touring or having a hit single or releasing two full albums — but merely signing to a major label does not pass NMUSIC all by itself if he hasn't done anything under that contract yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot of words to say you don't think that mainstream venues should be covering him yet. But they are. Rather than trying to erase that, we should be neutral, and just accurately cite what they say.NoahB (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. "Mainstream venues should not be covering him yet" is not what I said, it's not what I meant, and it's not what I think — but the context of what they're covering him for is not relevant to whether he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. They're covering him solely in the context of being a young musician who aspires to make it in the future, not in the context of having achieved anything yet.
The existence of one or two pieces of media coverage is not always automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — if it were, we would have to keep articles about my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard, unsuccessful candidates in city council elections, winners of high school poetry contests, and me — rather, we also test for the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and defer the creation of an article to a later date if there isn't a noteworthy achievement for our article to document yet. That's not a criticism of Cuco as a person, or of the media for covering him: the guy just hasn't done anything relevant to our notability criteria for musicians yet. Maybe in six months he will — that's great, and that's when a Wikipedia article will become warranted. But one substantive piece about him, paired with Q&A interviews and short blurbs, does not equal "a Wikipedia article needs to already exist today even if he hasn't actually accomplished anything noteworthy yet". Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the NPR piece has a lengthy intro, the Complex piece is not a Q&A. A report on his signing is also substantive. There is plenty of information about him from mainstream sources, which is why there are multiple citations in the article. In the time it's taken you to spin out hundreds of words here, you could have added links, resources and expanded the article. It's super frustrating to try to include information that is quite widely discussed on mainstream sites, only to have a deletion notice put up almost instantly. it really discourages new and infrequent users. NoahB (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complex piece is a Q&A: the text portion of it is a short prefatory blurb, while the substance of the link is an eight-minute YouTube video which is a Q&A interview featuring him talking about himself. The report on his signing is a blurb. The NPR piece is a Q&A interview, and Q&A interviews always feature short introductions to set up the context before the questions start — so a Q&A interview is not exempted from the problems with Q&A interviews just because a short preface is there, because a short preface is always there in all Q&A interviews. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space The sources rolling Stone shows that the subject is notable. An article should be developed, but for now I agree with the nominator that it is WP:TOOSOON. When the unequivocal GNG of the subject is there - the article will be ready. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WP:TOOSOON and discussion shows editor needs to review Wikipedia policies on notability. – The Grid (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree in principle with the TOO:SOON arguments (in the unlikely event his much hyped release tanks and we never hear from the guy again) and if Draftifying this while it is improved is a solution, so be it. But GNG is established with mainstream coverage ramping up in anticipation of this release, enough to meet GNG. In addition to those cited already, there are lengthy significant third party write ups in Teen Vogue [4], California Sunday [5], and LA Times, among others. [6] ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Falls under WP:TOOSOON, but can be recreated if he indeed becomes notable down the road. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON. Masum Reza^📞 06:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 20:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew K. Watts

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable source coverage about him. His notability as a musician derives from being a member of a band, not from solo activity, and the sourcing for that consists of a social media post and a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself -- and of the five sources for his purported notability as a music marketing professional, four of them are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and the only one that's actually about him is an employment announcement in an industry trade newsletter that doesn't really clinch his notability all by itself if it's actually the best source on offer. Literally none of this, neither in the substance nor in the sourcing, constitutes reasons why he would qualify for his own standalone article as a separate topic from the band. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator is correct. This article appears to be a resume/CV or an attempted LinkedIn-like entry for his marketing career, insinuating that he's an interesting office worker because he's a former punk musician. Could possibly be redirected to The Starting Line if anyone thinks the guy's name is a likely search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A few undisputed sources that were offered late in the discussion carry this to a keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pauw

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

Article is mostly about her father, with a good chunk of the text an exact match from the article about her father. An outside search brings up no WP:SIGCOV to prove WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it looks like theres more here, the reason for notability may be hidden away at the end "His widow had been married to him for 22 years, and wrote a biography of him that was published in 1943, three years after her death.” The article needs cleanup but it also seems like a rough translation from various Afrikaans wiki pages so thats to be expected. I'd suggest a stay of execution but whether or not the subject will eventually meet WP:GNG appears to be up in the air. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what the passage in Africaans says, but when the content on her father (which is in his article) is taken out there is very little left. Possibly selectively merge to her father as a final paragraph to that article. I not we do not have one on her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was created just 2 months ago and deserves time to develop. If it does not develop it can always be merged or redirected to Johannes Rath (missionary). ~Kvng (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to her father's article and merge anything that's referenced in there. Google did not reveal any additional sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed content that was about her father, not about her, and also the long quote. The para in Afrikaans was the original of the following para in English; I have deleted it, and corrected part of the translation (Anna survived her husband by 22 years, she was not married to him for 22 years). Now I will try to look for additional sources. Based on the contents here, I do not think that she would meet any WP:SNG, so it remains to be seen if she meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the time and place, the sources are adequate and her work is independent of that of the men in her life. WP:ANYBIO is met. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: two reliable non-English Afrikaans sources: * Krüger, prof. D.W. en Beyers, C.J. (hoofred.) Suid-Afrikaanse Biografiese Woordeboek Deel III. Kaapstad: Tafelberg-Uitgewers, 1977. Vermaak, Adinda. 2004. Kroniek van 'n kontrei. Die verhaal van die NG kerk Kuilsrivier. Kuilsrivier: NG Kerkraad, along with this one in English: * KlausDierks.com Biographies of Namibian Personalities That is three reliable sources, which due to the extensive time interval between the person and the source, are also third-party.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The name of the article does not need to be decided by AfD and is left to the typical processes for renaming. RL0919 (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Mersham (M2709)

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

While there are many, many ships that ARE notable, this one isn't. According to the page, which is just based on one page, it was completed in 1955 and then transferred to France sometime later that year. As such, it was never really in service, and the fact that the British Navy briefly named it before transferring it isn't notable and barely verifiable. Notability is important.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwg (talk • contribs) 18:44, 04 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ship was in service for 32 years and so has an extensive history. Its transfer and name change is included in the article and is not a reason to delete. If we wanted to change the title of the article then this would be done by a move – I'll move it back and forth to demonstrate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm, this is a tough one. The ship is of course covered in a number of editions of e.g., Jane's Fighting Ships, since she served in the French Navy for a number of decades. I don't have a copy of Jane's any more, still less one from that time period, but from the snippets visible in Google the description appear to be 1-2 sentences. There is no guide for determining ship notability so I am looking at other guides to see if there is anything that might help here, however based on the WP:NASTRO guide this would be keep, since coverage in Jane's would be the counterpart to being listed in a catalogue of interest to amateurs. If, however, it is decided not to keep the article then it should be merged into the article covering the Ham class of minesweepers. FOARP (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NASTRO is about astronomical objects whose numbers are literally astronomical – 2MASS lists over 300 million. Warships of this size are not so numerous. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to French minesweeper Violette. Notable, but probably best kept under the French name. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need something a bit more substantial to support notability than a Jane's listing, or is that sufficient by itself? I'm inclined to keep but I'm not sure about this point. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Named warships are usually presumed notable – see WP:SHIPOUTCOMES. The fact that this one was transferred from one navy to another is not especially unusual or any kind of reason to delete. If anything, the transfer makes it more notable because there's more to say and we have the French-language sources to consider as well as the English. Note also that the title French minesweeper Violette was created as a redirect in 2009 and so we already have that covered. Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. KEEP FOARP (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew D. - here is a summary of its career in French. Llammakey (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All warships are notable. Probably should be moved to its French name though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mazier

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

unelected political candidate. Essentially an eelection advertisement for him DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won — he has to win the seat and thereby hold the office to clear WP:NPOL, and to get an article anytime earlier than October 20 he will have to demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other reasons to get an article regardless of his candidacy. But this offers no such evidence at all: his stint on the board of directors of an organization is referenced to a special interest blog, not to real or notability-supporting media. As usual, he'll get an article on or after election day if he wins — but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have one today. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, because the person and the article subject is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidates not notable per WP:NPOL. Candidate not notable outside of their candidacy. When they win in October, we can re-visit the topic. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Ballotopedia. Not everyone running for office meets our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To date it would seem the most significant event in this individual's life is being elected the president of a board which did nothing remarkable during his tenure. Imagine a Wikipedia with an article for every president of every board everywhere. Delete. If he wins he gets an article. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coutu

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

Deprodded, without really addressing the concerns of the prod. Mayor of a small town in Quebec. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mayor of a town with a population on less than 4,000 is definitely not an WP:NPOL pass. Of the sources used, three are election results, two are local news coverage about him announcing mayoral campaigns, another is local news coverage of his winning an election, one does not even mention Coutu by name, and one is a radio interview. These hardly constitute a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has to win the federal election, not just run in it, to pass NPOL #1 — and as mayor of a small suburb of Montreal with a population of less than 4K, he would have to have nationalizing coverage, not just three or four hits in Montreal's local media, to pass NPOL #2. Obviously he'll get an article on or after October 20 if he wins the federal election and becomes an MP (I'll be nice and refrain from snarking on the prospects of a Conservative running in Montreal), but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it is not notable itself. Being the mayor of a city is not a good reason to create an article according to WP:GNG. Forest90 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. If he wins in October we will revisit. Bkissin (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big East Conference rivalries

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

Original research. Lack of inline citations makes pretty much the entire thing unverifiable, and none of the references used discuss these rivalries as a collection of conference rivalries. The references used also only appear to be about school-specific rivalries, and only just about certain events (i.e. not within the scope of the premise of this article on the whole). I'm a knowledgeable fan of college sports and I know that the Big East used to have a lot of intense rivalries, but as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, this page is original research. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as is it is very messy, many entries are uncited, and plagued with OR.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For sure original research and honestly not really worth a separate article. I could be wrong but it doesn’t even appear any of these are notable enough to have stand alone articles.--Rockchalk7 17 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created in 2006 when the old Big East existed which is considered a separate entity from the current Big East.--Rockchalk7 17 19:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would also support creating individual rivalry articles if any warrant that with sufficient sources. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal News Network International

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

This is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first was closed as a speedy keep since the nominator was a sock. I've done a WP:BEFORE and can't find any WP:SIGCOV to provide an indication of WP:NCORP. The author appears to have an undisclosed WP:COI and has generated several similar articles with related topics that also fail WP:GNG and are currently up for deletion discussion: Here: [7], here [8], here [9], and here [10]. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the nom was a sock. But, what about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? If it's a clearly unworthy article, why should a sock nom stop editors from finding ways to delete it anyway? And what kind of rationale is that from @Dthomsen8: - 'This publisher provides the world with news about Nepal. Wikipedia editors can find information and news in English'? Both sentences are perfect candidates for what not to argue. What if the publisher provides the world with everything. Wikipedia only cares what the world has provided the subject with, in terms of coverage. I sure can't find information or news in English on this subject except from primary sources. So, unless Dthomsen8 actually cites sources, it's a delete for me.Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up any confusion, I believe the above comment is referring to content from the previous AFD nomination. I think we can safely disregard the previous botched nomination by a sock. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any coverage. I understand this was potentially a big thing, but only if someone cared, which is another way of saying if it affected anybody in the world enough for anyone to care. The company is analogous to Alphabet Inc. except in this company's case, nobody noticed. For all the evidence we have, it might as well be a hoax perpetrated by the Annapurna brand of news media. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete: on one hand I am inclined to presume sources and Notability exist for a company that runs a TV channel, multiple paper-newspapers, and radio. On the other hand my initial source search didn't turn up much. I found this company mentioned on three foreign language versions of Wikipedia, however as is often the case on small-language Wikipedias their article content was inferior to our own. The best I have to add the moment is a story nepalekhabar.com AP1 TV comes into operation in March 2017. The story only makes a passing mention of Annapurna Media Network (apparently also known as Nepal News Network International), confirming that it operates AP1 TV. I may-or-may-not return later to do more research and/or cast a !vote. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Revised to delete, with little changed from my original comment. I'm satisfied that my presumption-of-sourcing was mistaken, being based on assumptions from my home country that clearly aren't accurate in the Nepali media market. I see a significant likelihood that this company could become notable, but that just means the current article is deleted as WP:TOOSOON. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee:, this would be the case this guideline would have had in mind. Relevant quote: "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." The Nepalekhabar might be an argument on the notability of AP1 television, that caters to millions of audiences, not a parent company controlling it from the background, as is apparent from the way the news is written. The papers and radios it owns may be notable too. But there is no sufficient evidence for notability of this parent company. This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned Alphabet. Run the Alphabet vs. Google simul and scale it down to the scale of a country like Nepal whose economy is smaller than many businesses. Then, it makes sense why the likes of this corporation might still fail notability guidelines. The Nepali wikipedia article (which should be expected to have more proof of notability than is accessible to English editors) only cites a job listing on a job broker site (anyone can look, it's in English). The creator and sole contributor to that page is up for adminship and so far only has support. Go figure that out. Usedtobecool ^TALK 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool I definitely hear what you're saying. I'm not arguing for inheritance, and the lack of identified sources is very close to a killer point.I just hesitate here because it strikes me as surprising that there wouldn't be more sourcing in this case. It's not a point I normally cite, but the standard for Keep is whether proper sourcing exists, not whether they're in the article or even whether we've found them. I think I just want to sleep on this first, and (maybe) make another attempt at a pain-in-the-butt source search. Or maybe I'm just hoping for more confidence that a native-speaker had done a solid search. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a corporation of a size and importance that would be expected to be kept in Wikipedia, there should be more sources available as per WP:NEXIST offline if not online, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Atlantic306, where did you find size and importance details on this company? Would you mind sharing them? It seems no one else in this discussion could find WP:NEXIST even though we've tried. Orville1974 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: - any reply to the above? starship .paint (talk)
Keep Being one of the old National News network of Nepal which runs annapurna news, Ap HD , Annapurna Patrika and this guys are directly attacking without knowin the criteria of Wikipedia. Owlf 21:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship .paint (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. What we are looking for is significance coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and I’m not seeing it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Does not meet any form of notability. Virtually no coverage at all with such links as there are being search farms or directories. ogenstein (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experts-Exchange

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

Most of the sourcing provided is from vanity websites. No real coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website was quite popular, and may be of intereset in future Wiki5537821 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it already survived one nomination, so it can just be rolled back to a satisfactory state. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kids these days have no respect for the famous double entendres of old. Artw (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the arguments here do not appear to be addressing the source issue (Wiki5537821 comes closest) - is there any good source on this website?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are, one of which was even around at the time of the first AFD discussion:
- Fischer, Scharff & Ye 2004, pp. 366–369 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFischerScharffYe2004 (help)
  - Fischer, Gerhard; Scharff, Eric; Ye, Yunwen (2004). "Fostering Social Creativity by Increasing Social Capital". In Huysman, Marleen; Wulf, Volker (eds.). Social Capital and Information Technology. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262083317.
- David 2007, pp. 189–191, Case study: Experts-Exchange harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavid2007 (help)
  - David, Shay (2007). "Toward Participatory Expertise". In Karaganis, Joe (ed.). Structures of Participation in Digital Culture. Social Science Research Council. ISBN 9780979077227.
- Schümmer & Lukosch 2007, pp. 150–151, §3.2.6 Reward harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchümmerLukosch2007 (help)
  - Schümmer, Till; Lukosch, Stephan (2007). "Community Support". Patterns for computer-mediated interaction. Wiley Software Patterns Series. Vol. 10. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470025611.
Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably). Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage (not just passing mentions) in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki

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

No sourcing in WP:RS, fails WP:RS. Störm (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found another independent source for the lede. The remaining text is the manifesto, for which the present sourcing is acceptable per the policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; since I am the Benevolent Creator For Life, and must therefore defend my righteous honour in the face of vandalous adversity! WP:N is not being challenged! What happened to ^{[citation needed]}? What is sigbovik with the egregia cum laude first reference? The last reference is okay too; even though I wasn't the one who found it. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just primary sources, No significant coverage from third-party sources. Charmk (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 6167 (p. 133, and where ever the reference on 469 is from)
CICM 2010: Intelligent Computer Mathematics (p. 456)
Volume 767 of the CEUR Workshop Proceedings (p. 54-62)
Enabling Collaboration on Semiformal Mathematical Knowledge by Semantic Web Integration (p. 18)
Gaussianos (translation)
Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 7362 (p. 177, 179)
What is the Most Important Theorem?
Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 7961 (p. 165)
Sum of Sequence of Squares – ProofWiki
Naver (translation)
AITP 2018: The Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Theorem Proving (p. 63-65)
AITP 2018: Playing with Autoformalization over Mizar and ProofWiki (p. 1-21)
ICMS 2018: First Experiments with Neural Translation of Informal Mathematics to Formal (p. 3, 4, 10)
??? (Google cann't translate this.)
ProofWiki is listed on Terence Taos' website.
ProofWiki is listed on Daniel Tubbenhauers' website.

A section on its' inclusion in the Mizar system could be included.

-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, https://0xffff.one/d/263 is a forum post. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/ and http://www.dtubbenhauer.com/ are blogs. I wouldn't count those as RS. Also, the current article reads like an advert. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess they do have ads; I've never checked before. Terence Tao is WP:RS. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, but the blog did not talk about ProofWiki specifically. WP:NWEB says that the page should discuss the subject specifically not merely linking to it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NWEB only says "Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted.". No where does it describe what you have. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples."

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]"--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should be able to agree that this article does not fail WP:RS. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve using the references listed in this discussion by Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated Charmk (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources linked talks about ProofWiki specifically. To me, they seem like passing mentions. --Charmk (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki looks to be a Wiki site for math proofs, just like any fandom Wikia sites. However, we don't see an article for every Wikia site out there.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd, 5th, and 10th, links in the sources list are only about ProofWiki. The 11th, and 12th, links in the sources list are about the relationship between Mizar, and ProofWiki. Since ProofWiki is titled in each of them, I'm surprised at your inability to recognise them! ProofWiki isn't Wikia either, it says MediaWiki on the article page; are you sure you're discussing the right page? In the right place? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki may just be a wiki site for math proofs, but OEIS is just a database of integer sequences. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, OEIS is also just a wiki. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OEIS is certainly not a Wiki. Moreover, this kind of argument, even if it were based in fact (which it is not), is not helpful for determining whether an article should be kept or not. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0Iq6BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=%22proofwiki%22&source=bl&ots=_vYIpoJ6uA&sig=ACfU3U2Mx-iOdK3hyqXY8702YzzBeo62tA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjlfTXveDiAhWJeisKHQpTAdo4HhDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=%22proofwiki%22&f=false passing mention
https://tiggienoggie.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/sum-of-sequence-of-squares-proofwiki/ blog post that links to ProofWiki but not discussing about ProofWiki
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://m.blog.naver.com/greengb/220570463674&prev=search blog post
http://aitp-conference.org/2018/aitp18-proceedings.pdf#page=63 ehhh... it discusses about ProofWiki but it seem to be about translating ProofWiki to Mizar
https://0xffff.one/d/263 blog post
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-767/paper-10.pdf compare and contrast different math type. Seem primary source to me, not secondary.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.gaussianos.com/proofwiki-el-wiki-de-las-demostraciones-matematicas/&prev=search blog post about ProofWiki
http://grid01.ciirc.cvut.cz/~mptp/neural1.pdf Brief compare contrast proofwiki to Mizar

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: The sources about translating ProofWiki into Mizar should be relevant since we discuss this in text. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman2718, but I don't see it supporting the wiki notability. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because does not have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Clnreee (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to view this as notable. I don't understand why this page 63 is being rejected as evidence of notability above. SJK (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV of itself. Sources provided are just passing mentions and do not show that this is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, ergo, not notable. Particularly, no substantial mentions in periodicals or sites dedicated to mathematics education or web cultures, which is where I would expect to find evidence of a maths website's notability. @SJK: That conference paper is the closest we get to an indication of notability here, but more than a singular source of that standard would be necessary to meet GNG in my view. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MathOverflow

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

Notability could not be inherited from parent, in this case Stack Exchange. Lacks sourcing from WP:RS and failure to meet WP:NWEB. Alexa rank: 28,801 Or, redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has 10 different references, none of which are just about the parent. In particular the atlantic article[11] is a detail and extensive look at the MathOverflow site. The Mercuary News article also looks like quite a substantial reference[12].--Salix alba (talk): 20:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination statement seems to imply that a subject cannot be notable if it is related to something else notable, untrue and a completely bogus application of WP:NOTINHERITED. And Alexa Rank is almost completely irrelevant for Wikipedia notability. The article as nominated already contained multiple in-depth sources in published reliable sources (the Atlantic and Mercury News sources) as well as multiple additional sources that are self-published but still reliable by virtue of the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS (blog posts from famous mathematicians). I just added two more peer-reviewed academic papers that are about the subject (they both have it in their titles). Clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Salix alba and David Eppstein. Certainly enough specific and detailed coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple in depth reliable and recognized expert sources pointed out by Salix and David above make for a clear pass of the notability threshold per WP:GNG. I don't see any insurmountable problems with the article content. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough talk from in depth WP:IS, WP:RS cited to pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while some Overflows suffer from short spans of life, this one is almost as old as its' parent. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. This is a dated article, surely even more references are available now. Perhaps someone can look for them and add them? Mhym (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Several new references have been added in the last couple of days. See the "Further reading" section of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The writing needs improvement, but the topic is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing obviously is very weak, but nevertheless there is no consensus to delete. If no better sourcing comes about in, say, a month or so, no prejudice against relisting this at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PhysicsOverflow

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

No sourcing at all, in WP:RS. Alexa rank of 1,197,749, and failure to meet WP:NWEB criteria. Störm (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has received coverage from at least two physics journals^[1]^[2] and one independent website.^[3] There are probably more sources like this out there. I don't think that Alexa rank is very relevant in this case: while PhysicsOverflow is quite notable among physicists, it is not used or known by laypeople. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pallavi Sudhir, Abhimanyu; Knöpfel, Rahel (23 October 2015). "PhysicsOverflow: A postgraduate-level physics Q&A site and open peer review system". Asia Pacific Physics Newsletter. 04 (1): 53–55. doi:10.1142/S2251158X15000193. ISSN 2251-158X.
^ https://www.pro-physik.de/restricted-files/86776. Retrieved 5 June 2019. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "A theoretical physics FAQ". www.mat.univie.ac.at. Retrieved 5 June 2019.

Keep; the peer-review aspects alone make this a reliable source, and the notability of its' userbase make it notable. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: It is peer-review; the very fabric of Wikipedia! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first of the three references in the list above is a primary source. The second is an interview with one of the site's creators, but that is evidence of the world (or at least the physics community) taking note, so it is a point in favor. The Alexa rank of a specialist website is pretty much an irrelevant datum. Likewise, whether the site itself counts as a "reliable source" is a topic for a different place and doesn't really bear upon the question of keeping this page one way or the other. (After all, we have plenty of articles about publications that we do not consider reliable sources.) There are just enough verifiable items of evidence that physicists use and recommend the site that we can justifiably have a page about it. I might not object to a merge, if a suitable target were proposed, but that is also a discussion for another day and place. XOR'easter (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited above are problematic. As mentioned, the first two are directly from the creators of the WWW site themselves, one being an interview and the other being a newsletter announcement from those creators. The third simply does not provide any information about this subject at all, upon reading it. The sources cited in the article are equally problematic. Supporting citations for several claims are simply pointers to conversations amongst people on the site itself, from which readers are supposed to make original inferences; and the other sourcing in the article is not any better. Looking elsewhere, I cannot find any reliable independent sources from which to make an article properly. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB due to lacking sustained independent WP:SIGCOV. All of the sources in the article and provided here in the AfD have serious deficiencies as outlined by Uncle G above. They just do not in any way get this article off the ground and over any notability guidelines. I would also note this article was created and fostered by a prolific WP:SPA. The likely COI here means this article should be swiftly uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caoimhin Kelleher

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

Contested PROD. This subject fails WP:FOOTY's notability guidelines. Being named on the bench for a match, even the Champions League final, is not enough to confer notability. – Pee Jay 16:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 16:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Winning the Champions League has brought him a fair amount of coverage centred around him, particularly in Ireland where he is being counted as one of the 12 Irishmen to win the Champions League but also in Britain's The Times, who are covering his quick dash to the Toulon tournament [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] He may never have played a professional match but let's be honest if he went into the amateur game or stopped playing tomorrow, there would be continuing interest in the case of a player who won the Champions League and then never played a professional match. This is not the same case as sitting on the bench for a league match in November. 89.243.238.65 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was on the bench of the Champions League final therefore he got a medal and is considered a winner of this trophy. Seeing as it's the most prestigous trophy in club football, I think that he is notable enough to keep his article in Wiki. — Dudek1337 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in WP:FOOTY's notability criteria about players who have only ever been on the bench. Besides, the only reason he was on the bench is because UEFA allowed teams to name 12 subs this year, and the only way he would have got on the pitch is if both Alisson and Mignolet were injured or sent off. This is a statistical quirk, nothing more. – Pee Jay 20:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree the article does not meet WP:NFOOTY, maybe an argument for WP:SPORTSPERSON, but I think it does meet WP:GNG, even if you discount coverage of Toulon from today (the sources IP 89.243 posted above) as all being WP:BLP1E, there are still sources from earlier that I think count as WP:SIGCOV. The WP:THREE are Irish Mirror 2018-11-05, Goal.com 2018-11-14 and Liverpool Echo 2019-03-12. Also I'm finding a ton of routine coverage, quite WP:SUSTAINED for someone so young IMO. Seems to clearly be among the echelon of young superstar players, despite a lack of senior appearance. For example, from 2015, 2016, 2018, 2018 again. Possibly draftify, but I think it's a GNG keep already. – Levivich 23:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of coverage is fairly routine for any young player who makes a move to a big club. I have no doubt that he will someday play a competitive, first-team match for a professional club, at which point he will meet WP:FOOTY's notability guidelines, but if his career were to stop today, would you really consider him notable? – Pee Jay 10:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I come at this from a complicated place. One thing I strongly disagree with is the notion that a player will "become" notable when they have a senior professional game appearance (and thus meet NFOOTY). That implies automatic notability to any senior professional player with 1 appearance, and that's basically the crusade I'm fighting against. In other words, NFOOTY without GNG = not notable in my book. As far as routine, yes, call-ups, contract signings, changing teams, etc., is all routine and just about every player gets a write-up in the news surrounding those events. But I think the volume and detail for this player goes beyond what is typical. For example, the story about him singing karaoke with his teammates. That's not the kind of news coverage that every player gets–that demonstrates (to me) a higher-than-average level of interest in this player on behalf of the media. Also, there's a lot of speculation surrounding his contract moves, which is common... for a Liverpool superstar, not just for any player on any team (even in a first-tier fully professional league). To your question: if he quit today would I consider him notable? No... I mean, stepping back, no, I wouldn't give him a stand-alone page. My personal criteria for that would be much, much higher–like having played at least one full season before anyone gets a stand-alone page–but I'm also aware that my person criteria is much tighter than the community consensus here. So I !vote keep based on my interpretation of global consensus when it comes to notability for a footballer... it's a keep not by my personal standards so much as it's a keep by community standards. Plus, as a practical matter, he is young and still playing, so if we draftified it, it'd be moved out of draft space as soon as he took the pitch and got one game appearance, which is highly likely to happen imminently. Not that draftifying would be the worst choice here, but for this particular player (who I think is a bona-fide "star' and not just any player), draftifying seems like an unnecessary step. TLDR: he's not far over the notability line, but he's over the line with WP:THREE separate solid sources over a six-month period. – Levivich 17:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably passes GNG; article needs substantial overhaul though. Giant Snowman 07:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep off a very quick single web search, easily passes WP:GNG, will almost certainly pass WP:NFOOTY soon and if he doesn't is at the point where that will convey additional WP:GNG-type articles. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the held positions is not equivalent to a "statewide office" per NPOL. No evidence that GNG or any other notability criteria has been met, and therefore consensus is "delete." However, it should be noted that it is not at all a "clear attempt to abuse that provision". That is undeserved bad faith. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Masch

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

Bureaucrat that has held multiple positions, but none that pass WP:NPOL. PROD was contested based on the assumption that Masch has held statewide office, but he has not held any statewide elected office or been elected to any office over the course of his career. He serve as the Secretary of Administration under Governor Ed Rendell, but that is an appointed position to run a state government department. GPL93 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Just a business administrator with mainly primary sources, dead links, or mundane news reports or press releases. Otr500 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording of WP:NPOL -- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office -- doesn't explicitly state that one has to be an elected official to meet NPOL. The office he holds - Secretary of Administration - is a technically a state-wide office. Ergo, he is notable under WP:NPOL. That said, the article's quality does not look good right now. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL he has held a statewide office.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Department of Administration is a 600-person support office for other statewide government departments and "Secretary" is simply the term used in PA instead of "director". It's not a constitutionally established office and can be dissolved at any time. I don't particularly think the Statewide office criteria of NPOL covers that. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The small Department of Administration is an office director position and can hardly be used as justification to pass the statewide office criteria of WP:NPOL. This is a clear attempt to abuse that provision to keep! this article. If he did pass it, then any random DMV official would need an article as well, since everyone in the state is technically under them so they are more a statewide official then this guy. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of functionary falls below what our rules are intended to allow. bd2412 T 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Torregrossa

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

Fails WP:GNG and being the director of a department in the Pennsylvania Governor's office doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The page has not been updated since at least 2011 when Torregrossa left the Office of Health Care Reform. GPL93 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. This is a role that could get her into Wikipedia if she could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that guarantees her the right to keep a poorly sourced article just because she exists. The only references here, however, are government-published primary sources, not real media coverage about her work. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to the page. Whether she is notable or not is one thing, but a 2 sentence page has no place on WikipediaMaskedSinger (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, WP:TOOLITTLE q.v. Sam Sailor 08:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right my learned friend. Size of article isn't an issue but that's if the person is as notable as Justin Bieber or Michael Jordan. Not the case with Ann Torregrossa, so yes she needs a more significant article to establish her notability. As WP:TOOLITTLE say a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. This clearly isn't the case as you yourself agree by you voting to delete!
Delete. Not sourced to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, nor presumed notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 08:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one-sentence-lead-one-sentece-article model permeating this website is getting ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording of WP:NPOL -- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office -- doesn't explicitly state that one has to be an elected official to meet NPOL. The office she holds - Director of the Office of Health Care Reform - is a technically a state-wide office. Ergo, she is notable under WP:NPOL. That said, the article's quality does not look good right now. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of Healthcare reform was not a statewide agency, it’s a division within the Governor’s

Office. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of American supercentenarians#Adelina Domingues. Consensus is that this page needs to go away, but there is a bit of disagreement on whether any content is salvageable. Thus redirecting, so that the page is gone and people can recover content if they think they can save it elsewhere. That would be at editorial discretion, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adelina Domingues

AfDs for this article:

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

Time for another AfD on this, now that there's a clearer idea of what supercentenarian articles are being kept and deleted. After the AfD there remain 3 sources, 2 of which are obituaries and 1 being the GRG table, so there's not really anything in the way of significant coverage. If deleted, the title should then redirect to List of oldest people by country and anchored to Cape Verde. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But... but... but she ate beans every day! And she refused medication! And she had a son!! That's important!! Seriously: delete this cruft per WP:NOPAGE. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOPAGE and my nomination rational in the last AfD. I will only reiterate that this article was deleted once before and recreated under the false premise that being the oldest in the world automatically warrants the notability for an individual article, which it does not. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely living longer than others does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect as recommended by the nominator. The coverage is trivial. There's nothing inherently notable about staving off the Grim Reaper for an especially long period of time. David in DC (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, how are you? It's been a long time, seems like we've come a long way... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a minibio on List of American supercentenarians. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of American supercentenarians#Adelina Domingues per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems. Merging was my second choice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelina Domingues (2nd nomination). I have completed the merge. The information is sourced to Los Angeles Times and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Cunard (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Applicant

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails Notability (web). Defunct self published website. I have been unable to find any evidence of Notability. Article creator's edit history shows strong evidence of COI promotion here. Alsee (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article may be eligible for speedy delete as recreation of deleted article: The Applicant (AfD discussion) unanimously consensus to delete and with the following quote from the nomination: "Article has been deleted after CSD and PROD before, therefore now taking to AfD." Alsee (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There is no evidence to be found anywhere that even acknowledge its existence, let alone its significance. ~~Wikipedia is in trouble if this requires a discussion.~~
Furthermore, it's yet another article by User:Dansong22 which is an undeclared alias of Arun Budhathoki, created solely to publicise himself, ruthlessly misusing wikipedia in the process. Don't be surprised if a 27.34.xxx.xxx IP or Ozar77 show up cursing and threatening, with or without resorting to blanking this page and/or deleting AfD tag on the article. Usedtobecool ^TALK 15:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that was disclosed on the talk page of this very article, deleted the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recreated article that was already removed as a result of the AfD process. Like a few other similar articles currently up for deletion from related authors, this one also fails to meet WP:NCORP. There's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Orville1974 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the prior deleted article. Whilst it is very similar content, and I would normally delete it as a re-creation (by the same article creator, indeed), I am inclined to let the AFD process run. This is for two reasons. First, as someone else has mentioned, it is possibly useful for people to see all of the articles in this group as the discussion runs. Second, the prior discussion was about lack of any sources at all. This was in 2012 and the old article indeed cited almost nothing. Some of the sources to be taken into consideration now did not exist then. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship .paint (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Obviously non-notable now and will never be. It doesn't help that the links describe the site as defunct or generate a 404 error without being archived. The name is so generic that it is impossible to find any related links using google (assuming…). ogenstein (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philadelphia mayoral election. See also the close of the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Murray Bailey. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Ciancaglini is a candidate in 2019, not 2015. I've corrected the redirect target accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ciancaglini

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia in the upcoming 2019 Election. Maybe redirect to 2019 Philadelphia mayoral election? I have also nominated the 2015 Republican nominee who similarly doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as well. GPL93 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that he has preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for other reasons. He'll obviously qualify for an article on or after November 5 in the (somewhat unlikely but never say never) event that he actually wins the election, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates don't get their own page. It's well known. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 Philadelphia mayoral election Good thinking GPL93! Obviously unelected candidate is not notable per WP:NPOL. Better to redirect to the election itself. Bkissin (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 Philadelphia mayoral election. I have no concerns with redirecting candidates who do not either pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL to a valid page about the election they are most notable for. --Enos733 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless he wins the mayoral election he will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete or Redirect Candidates often do get their own page. See Melissa Murray Bailey. If Bailey is given her own page, why wouldn't Ciancaglini? What is the difference? Lasalleexplorer (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasalleexplorer:, actually they do not unless they receive an abnormally high amount of coverage, such as Christine O'Donnell or if you want to go the Philadelphia route Sam Katz. I also nominated Bailey's page for deletion at the same time and even then the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is generally one to avoid. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Murray Bailey is also up for deletion, and isn't on track to survive. And no, candidates don't "often" get their own page: if they don't already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have clinched a Wikipedia article anyway (e.g. Hillary Clinton is not losing her article just because she didn't win the presidency, because she held several other NPOL-passing political roles before running for president), then they need to show an unusual depth and range and volume of coverage, that goes well beyond what other candidates can also show, before the candidacy itself is grounds for an article. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philadelphia mayoral election. RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Murray Bailey

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia in the 2015 Election, which she lost in a landslide, and does not have enough significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Maybe redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election? GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that she has preexisting notability that would get her an article for other reasons — even her prior employment background is referenced to mentions of it in the election campaign coverage, not to evidence that she was receiving coverage for that work at the time that she was doing it. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability. Redirect to election itself. Bkissin (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability. Redirect to election itself. Djflem (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election as a usual and appropriate outcome when there is a valid page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election. Very little coverage, far too little for a BLP. Given the lopsided party split in Philadelphia, being the Republican nominee is virtually a BLP1E. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no point keeping this open for 7 days. It almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion A7 (there's no claim of notability), it's copied verbatim from a book (whilst it probably isn't a copyvio due to age, that's not a good idea either) and anything further is a waste of everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Cussans

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

Unnontable person with an article reading like a story. Cenobialis (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is copied from the single source here. That source makes it clear that he is not a notable individual. No other reference exists, fails WP:BIO QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't help in checking out the sources by removing the interwiki hyperlink to s:en:Nollekens and his times, volume 2/Cussans from the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed the link to John Thomas Smith's Nollekens. cygnis insignis 15:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A broken link to another Wikiproject isn't massively helpful given it isn't a reliable source and pretty much duplicates the content of the other reference. But you are welcome to your opinion. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said the source doesn't exist, which is not terribly polite. cygnis insignis 15:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any real notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, of course, hello again. cygnis insignis 17:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuiteUnusual:, meet @Slatersteven:, he would probably point out that what you said is a personal attack. cygnis insignis 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me, please stop these distractions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it is not notable itself and also lack of reliable sources for covering the Article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest90 (talk • contribs)

How that could be known by glancing at something is a mystery to me. Please remember to sign your !votes. cygnis insignis 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My number one objection is not that the subject is not notable (he clearly is not), but that the article is not in fact an encyclopedia article. It is an annotated old document masquarading as an encyclopedia article. Some of the typos I fixed almost make me think the old document was scanned, otherwise I find some of them hard to believe. While in theory these problems could be fixed, with the subject so clearly failing the general notability guidelines for people there is just no reason to expend energy in fixing the article. Plus, some contributions are just so egregiously at odds with what an encyclopedia article should be we ought to just remove them for violating the basics of encyclopedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The old document was scanned, you are absolutely correct, this can be verified by looking at the source provided. Had you heard of the biographer before? cygnis insignis 06:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that this person was mentioned as an interesting local character in a couple of old books in the 1800s. With no other sources on the supposed Mr. Cussans, it is entirely possible those authors made him up, and even if he was real he does not merit an encyclopedia article just because he was mentioned in an old book. He has no evidence of notability as a historical figure. Also the article creator has admitted above that the whole thing is copied word-for-word from a book, which is either a copyright violation or just plain lazy and unethical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: please strike that comment. cygnis insignis 19:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment. Wikipedia is for writers, not copiers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what quotation marks are. And that an accusation of copyvio is very serious? cygnis insignis 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all of the above. It's too bad that none of your diversion tactics make old Mr. Cussans any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you are aware you making a personal attack. I see how productive and helpful you are, that is not at all, and there is no need to pay you any mind. cygnis insignis 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the lazy comment is wrong, but we do have rules prohibiting copyright violations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But … what is your point. It pretty obviously isn't. cygnis insignis 13:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is he should not have called you lazy. There are other ways of putting it, such as plagerist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are not plagiarism either. cygnis insignis 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there is plagiarism and a plagiarist, you understand that difference too? cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you coped the whole article, that is not quoting. A quote is "and they all lived happily ever after" not the whole story. Yes (buy the way) I do know the difference hence why I did not say "it would have been fair to call him a plagiarism".Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to my user space, with a view to perhaps restoring it to main space. The redirect can be deleted and discussion closed. cygnis insignis 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a redirect in main space to the draft. Thus the main space page William Cussans still needs deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you fixed that? cygnis insignis 13:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and don't userfy unless completely rewritten with new sources and new content that at least meets the A7 threshold). Agree with Johnpacklambert above; this is neither a suitable topic for Wikipedia, nor in fact is it a Wikipedia article at all; it's just a copy-pasted paragraph from a random, decidedly non-encyclopedic 19th-century work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this may be an amusing anecdote, it's not an encyclopedia article, and there's no evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kabakov

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

Tenuous notability. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 13:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasons to delete article. Alexander Kabakov matches basic peoples notability criteria. A number of indepedent sources listed in article text, and it's not a big problem to add more. This person also have a big notability in IT industry as one of two founders of a Russian software company, prizing by IARPA at 2017, and publishing ambiguous and controversial face recognition technology implementation FindFace. In this role he got a big number of international press mentions - not only russian and american, but also french, chineze and other. Zircumflex2017 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman, no actual claim to notability. Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, he should not be confused with the far more notable Aleksandr (Abramovič) Kabakov 188.216.192.146 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find effectively nothing notable about this person per WP:BASIC; although he appears in several articles about his software, he is definitively not the subject. The article's creator and effectively sole maintainer contests that Kabakov "got a big number of international press mentions", yet links to one small article by a Russian propaganda outlet that's not even directly about Kabakov. I think FindFace, the subject that's actually covered by the citations in Kabakov's article, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (although its citations are currently in disrepair), but the subject himself categorically fails to meet notability guidelines. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent computer network

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

Almost 14 years and still no sources. Searching for sources, I can find a few uses of the phrase "intelligent computer network(s)" (e.g. this paper), but those uses I can find seem to have very little to do with the sense this article proposes. It seems to me that while a handful of reliable sources using this term can be found, their uses of the term don't have much in common with each other, and hence can't form a basis for an article. In other words, this isn't really a standard term in computer networking; various people will sometimes propose various ways in which networks could be made more intelligent, but those proposals have little in common with each other, and even less in common with the text of this article as it stands. (I would have PRODed but it was already PRODed back in 2006 and the deletion was contested then.) SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:CSD#A7. Whilst there are a plethora of "intelligent computer network]]s" for which a case could be made, this article is so vague that it's impossible to tell what it's trying to mean. The article conveys no more knowledge than putting together random words from a technical dictionary. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling, I had the same experience as the nom and was unable to find suitable sources. Msnicki (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague to be verifiable WP:V- it's not clear that the article reflects reality. Notability is important WP:NI. This may be original research? WP:NOR Ericwg (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No. From looking at the edit history, my reading is that this started out at intellgent network (sic), as an article on the Intelligent Network discussing the PSTN. But it wasn't particularly clear and overgeneralized. So it got renamed out of the way, people thinking that perhaps it was about some other subject, and the part about the PSTN then got removed. And here we are, 13 years later. Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The page was forked by Charles Matthews soon after its creation. As this branch didn't develop, we might just merge them back together per WP:PRESERVE and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Deleting this edit history would be disruptive. See also WP:BROAD. Andrew D. (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Network (to which intelligent network redirects) is a valid article and forked from this years ago. It also has (as this article doesn't) a clear scope, which is obviously distinct from any meaning for a computer network. There's no overlap, there's no edit history here worth preserving. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose merge or redirect. One reason is that "intelligent computer network" is not a recognised name for the "Intelligent Network" series of ITU standards. Also, given the uses of the phrase "intelligent computer network" out there are so varied, the odds are low that someone looking up that phrase would actually be looking for the topic of the "Intelligent Network" article. Given it isn't really a helpful redirect, and there is little of value in the history, I think delete is the better outcome here. SJK (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The phrase "intelligent computer network" seems to hark back to 1990s thinking, and has rather been overtaken by the dumb network becoming standard. The first and standard comment I make is to the nominator: did you try Google Books? WP:BEFORE says you try Google Books. Then, a merge into context-aware network might work, in the sense that the page there (a) needs an explanation of the term, and (b) should be worked over anyway. Actually deleting old buzz-phrases isn't really the way to go. It is fairly normal, I'd say, that when the engineering approach moves on, the old language drops away. No need to be history is written by the victors about it, though, which isn't encyclopedic. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews: Yes I did search on Google Books, and found nothing substantial. Regarding your proposal to merge to context-aware network, honestly I don't think that article is much better than this one, so I've proposed it for deletion as well. SJK (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it looks like "context-aware network" is a term that was fashionable around 2005. It's really the same issue as for this article, with added plagiarism (of Wikipedia, seemingly) in Google Books sources. To put the argument in better shape, if all that really can be referenced is a dicdef, then there is a case for deletion. With pages 2 to 19 of [18] missing, though, it is a bit hard to say that looking at Google Books is the "thorough search" for reliable sources required at WP:DEL-REASON, #7. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even when Google Books doesn't let you see a page, it will still let you search its text. A text search confirms there are only two mentions of "context-aware network" in that book – on page xi, the acronym "ACAN" is defined as "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network", and then pages 22-23 discusses ACAN. SJK (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I mean, the article isn't really coherent. I'd say merge or redirect, but it's been up for 14 years and still hasn't found a home. Hydromania (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point, I don't think there is any question that this article does not meet any sort of criteria for being kept, and Andy Dingley and SJK have very clearly explained why a Merge or Redirect would be inappropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because of lack of sources and vagueness of the existing text, I don't have any ideas on how to fix this. I haven't seen any good ideas from others either but will watch the discussion and am happy to change my opinion if a good idea emerges. ~Kvng (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clear A7 case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CEOWORLD magazine

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

This "magazine" is a website, and fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), specifically WP:WEBCRIT. I can only find passing mentions, and nothing independent and in-depth. References based on CEOWORLD have been added to various Wikipedia articles, but this appears to be largely ref-spamming. Edwardx (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CEOWORLD magazine is mentioned in several published news articles and publications; for example, look through the results of this Google News search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salientunplugged (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This meets CSD#A7 (web) with absolute ease. The current article is no more than a directory listing and the "magazine" has zero credibility (based on opinion surveys and what not) and coverage (check Google and GNews just). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim al-Mujab

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

Searching Google Books and Scholar turned up nothing, could of course me a spelling issue - if he actually is the person who was caretaker of the shrine that might be enough Doug Weller talk 11:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki article gives some ideas of where to look. Note that the dates in the citations are in Solar Hijri. Uncle G (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable historical figure who has a shrine in Karbala.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronilo Cervantes Jr.

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

Non-notable student politician. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Student regent" at a university is not an WP:NPOL-passing political role — and the only reference here is a primary source namecheck of his existence in the university's own self-published list of its board of regents, not reliable source coverage about him in real media that's independent of the university. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails all notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BTW @Hugsyrup, Bearcat, and GPL93: Can somebody look at another similar article: Elijah San Fernando? The creator also made that. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxyGrampa75: Yup, just AfDed it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keyun Ruan

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Being editor of a book and having written a couple of papers is not sufficient. Almost all references are her own work, and being included in a '30 under 30' list is not nearly enough in the absence of other in-depth coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:BASIC. While I do hope she succeeds and makes a name for herself, she hasn't yet. Hydromania (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bing (search engine). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Predicts

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

Trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bing. There isn’t enough here for an independent article (yet) but no reason to lose it entirely. Many other features/services are covered in the main article. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Needs more sources. Redundant. CryptoWriter (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hutchings

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

This artist appears not to have received sufficient independent and in-depth coverage to pass WP:NARTIST. The most in-depth thing here is a blog interview [19], to which I would assign little weight. The rest is passing mentions or material that is published by himself or associates/associated bodies. - BTW, what does appear notable on its own strength (but does not yet have an article) is The Invisible War: A Tale on Two Scales, which he illustrated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has certainly done things and published/illustrated books. I can't find any evidence that this work as the subject of enough independent, in depth secondary coverage that would meet GNG. I found this, which is a passing mention. It is all about The Invisible War, which indeed seems notalbe. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have added further sources of coverage/citations which hopefully illustrate notability within the Australian arts/literary community. Boofhead78 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NARTIST because he lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV of his life or works and it's not clear that he has had major roles in multiple substantial projects. The limited coverage around him and The Invisible War is just not enough to get him over this bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two relists have not produced a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Babar

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. The only information I can is the CBE. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can also only find confirmation that she exists (Mirror and Google books) and of the CBE. I had understood that a CBE made someone notable - see Talk:Notability (awards and honors), but on looking again and reading the earlier discussion about this article I don't think there was consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always held a CBE or above to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. There is substantial precedent for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - It doesn't take long to find that there is very little coverage of the subject, and perhaps none that qualifies as significant. I don't see how a biography can be written based upon the available sources. So practically speaking, we get what we have, a fragment of a sentence from the relentlessly spare citation. As an aside, the year specified and linked to is incorrect — it's not the New Year's Eve Honours.

I do not value a sub-stub 'biography'. I did read the 'awards and honours' discussion. I cannot find, there or elsewhere, a statement wherein every CBE is guaranteed a biography. This is appropriate as there are too many people with this honour for it to be considered 'significant'. For comparative purposes, I took a look at the two higher ranks, of which there were typically no more than ten created each year combined (last few years excepted). In 2008, there were eight DBE/KBE created, seven of whom have pages and while none of them are expansive, it does seem that there was sufficient information available on each of them to write a biography. There were no GBE honours that year (FWIW, this is the level that I'd consider an SNG for). There should be sufficient material available to write the biography and I could not discover any with which this page might be fleshed out. Ultimately, the purpose here is to inform the reader and a husk of a biography fails at this so I must recommend 'delete'. ogenstein (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is considerable precedent for a CBE or above to be notable. Many AfDs have decided that this is the case. The CBE is an exceptionally notable award only awarded to those who have contributed substantially to the country, usually at a national level. In a country of over 60 million people, 100-200 awards every year is not a lot. The GBE is an exceptionally rare honour, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I should also point out that the usual award to men as an equivalent to the DBE is a Knight Bachelor, not a KBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobel prize is exceptionally notable. For a given subject, only one (unless shared) is given out each year, so practically speaking, there is a limit to how many there are. The GBE has, from what I understand, a limit of 300 at any time. As such, wikipedia can have a list of GBE but there are too many CBE or DBE to do so. If there are too many to list, then it is a lot. As well, there are other countries with similar honours. Before long, 1/500 wikipedia pages would be covering these exceptionally notable honours, with 98% of them being stubs. If there isn't a meaningful defined restriction, as with the GBE, or with CC of the Order of Canada, then I think it is too large a net to cast.

To your aside, there are two names under KBE for 2008, and the OBE page classifies the two as the same (even if it discusses it in the text). If it is misleading, perhaps an update would help clarify. ogenstein (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The KBE and the DBE are at the same level, but the KBE is rarely awarded. Most men awarded a knighthood are appointed Knight Bachelor. Most women awarded the equivalent are appointed DBE. Just one of the peculiarities of the honours system. And no, there is no problem with creating stubs for people who are notable. We have generally made a cut-off point of CBE because far fewer of these are awarded than the lower OBE or MBE, where numbers of awards begin to mushroom, and they are generally only awarded for high achievement at a national level (whereas OBEs and MBEs may be awarded for achievement at a local level). To suggest that even a knighthood or damehood is not an indication of notability frankly shows a lack of understanding of the honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Before long, 1/500 wikipedia pages would be covering these exceptionally notable honours, with 98% of them being stubs.", oh, you mean similar to the 1/500 (or more) stubbies dedicated to notable sportspeople?, this is irrelevant, if the person is notable, they are notable, whether their page is a one line stub or a 5 page GA. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If they're actually notable but I don't believe that a one-line article is a good article. FWIW, I'd guess that sportstubs are beyond that level. I'd be up for changing both sportstubs and geostubs — even if it were by just folding them into a higher level page. I'm not going to advocate for an arbitrary fire hose. ogenstein (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and whats all this talk about "exceptional" honors and "Nobel prizes"? an honor/award needs to be "well-known and significant", see WP:ANYBIO, not "exceptional", of course someone who receives one of these significant (not necessarily exceptional:)) awards "are likely to be notable ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Blumpf (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is long-standing precedent for the CBE being sufficent to establish notability. The first AfD was a fairly unanimous Keep, and I don't see any reason to re-litigate the issue again and again. Atchom (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional discussion on whether a CBE is sufficient to demonstrate notability on its own (per ANYBIO1) -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm the nominator) - Per WP:ANYBIO "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (my underline added on the last part). Insisting that ANYBIO1 means she has to have an article doesn't actually align with the ANYBIO policy. As we've all found, the only reason we can identify for this article is her CBE award. That's just not enough to reach WP:GNG on it's own. Based on a misinterpretation of ANYBIO, or a precedent set by a prior AfD that is being used to overwrite an existing policy (a quasi-policy that is now being discussed as if it were unchangeable), we're ignoring WP:NOCOMMON, and are left with a two-sentence stub that isn't likely to ever expand. How does treating the CBE as the sole criteria for notability improve Wikipedia? Orville1974 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It simply doesn't. The reader finds no new information after clicking her name at 2008_New_Year_Honours#Commanders_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire_(CBE). Blumpf (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of short, uninformative articles on Wikipedia where the individual has been included on the basis of a single criteria conferring 'automatic notability'. Sportspeople being among the most common. In this case, a CBE is awarded for having a 'prominent' role at a national level, or a 'leading' role at a local level, and/or for 'distinguished contribution' to any area. Those are literally criteria for notability, so why second-guess it? Hugsyrup (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's true about the sports articles and I'd support an effort to change that but WP:NSPORTS currently provides specific requirements for notability in each sport (e.g. play one game in NFL) which, even if it makes for too low a bar, is a clear bar and an objective one. Even the supporters of CBE make arbitrary distinctions between it and the lower honours. And they're basically the same distinction that those who oppose the CBE line make just applied at a different level. I would prefer if these reflexive articles were merged into a list of some sort (e.g. New York Yankees players of the 1920s, CBEs of 2008) and should sufficient material subsequently appear, they could diverge into a separate article. I'm always disappointed when I click through to an article and find it empty. ogenstein (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person is so few notable that nothing is known about her, except for a one time event. Is she even alive ? And if she is dead, where are the obituaries ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jenny Zeng. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MSA Capital

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

This appears to be undisclosed paid editing (in mainspace) in violation of our Terms of Use, but for reasons I can't understand that is not considered grounds for deletion.

So, is the company notable by our standards? It gets 62 hits on GNews, most of which appear to actually be about it; hits for "MSA Capital" on GBooks all appear to relate to Management Science America, to a mine in Mexico or to a consultancy in Santa Fe. I do not see anywhere any substantial in-depth coverage of this company in independent reliable sources. Sourcing in the article is entirely to press-releases and similar promotional materials relating to the day-to-day conduct of its routine business. Justlettersandnumbers ([[User

I don't know what kind of confusion you encounter when you do research but I checked your URL posted above, and I have no idea how you do research. Why would you check Google News as a destination? Why wouldn't you use a simple Google search where you find at least 15-20 articles of pertinent substance (of 86 links)? Where are you getting Management Science America from? This deletion attempt appears to be irresponsible and a careless lack of effort and possibly skill by people that could otherwise improve the article, with a modicum of some effort. I know research is time consuming, and the article would need to be flushed out more to be effective and more useful. And I am not going to research it, but there are several interviews published in major news venues (out of the 86 links listed), about the activities of this firm. https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=MSA+Capital&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= I want to add I have no affiliation with this article at all, I am just stunned by the continuing carelessness and propensity to delete, while articles of pure trivia and gossip continue to be published. Is it a predisposition to delete things? Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 09:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jenny Zeng. Non-notable company with a notable founder, who was named one of the top 30 businesswomen of China. -Zanhe (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've no objection to creation of a redirect, as proposed by Zanhe, after deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC) This article is simply nominated for deletion by people that appear to be unable, for whatever reasons, to research the contents of the article in question. There doesn't seem to another reason and I don't want to speculate on possible motivations for its call for deletion or the failure by editors to make an effort.Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of what you have said is a good reason to keep. If you can point to references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, please do so. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Zanhe above. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indian heat wave

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

Any reason why this does an individual article? It said the highest recorded temperature is in 2016, this seems we should have an yearly article on Indian summer heat? Viztor (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for adding the article: this 2019 heat wave had temperatures exceeding 50 degrees Celsius; and 17 people have been reported dead already. I thought readers might want to learn the significance of the >50 degree temperatures in comparison to the record high.Merlin ^s orca 18:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a particularly remarkable heat wave, and Wikipedia is not The Weather Channel. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the Main Page has a news section (where 11 people drowned in a boating accident, but who's counting?), and news channels also cover the weather. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 17 dead certainly seems notable. There is WP:SIGCOV for the subject of the article in the references provided. We'll have to wait to see whether the impact is WP:LASTING. The article was probably written too soon. FOARP (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 17 deaths is not especially high in terms of Indian heat waves. This is surprising given the high temperature. This may end up being notable, but the article was created WP:TOOSOON. According to our articles, 2015 Indian heat wave had 2,500 deaths, 2002 India heat wave, 1,030, 2016 Indian heat wave, 1,600. This newspaper reports 2,500 dead in 1998 and mentions that 1956 had an even higher temperature. This newspaper reports 350 deaths in 1995 while the heat wave was still ongoing. SpinningSpark 23:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although, as I said above, this was probably created TOOSOON, the unusually high temperature being reached suggests this is going to be a significant event. The 1998 heatwave was a degree or two lower but still killed thousands. Also, the nom seems to have been made on the premise that we don't have articles on India summer heat, which is demonstrably false. SpinningSpark 06:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a weather event happens regularly doesn't mean it lacks notability. When it has a massive effect even weather events that happen multiple times a year (e.g. hurricanes) are notable. I would have loved to see this be created after a bit more time, TOOSOON is a real concern, but between having and not having this article we should have it - the sourcing is present to suggest it passes GNG and will have lasting notability beyond just this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; considering the temperature is notable by comparison, and a low death rate would be the notable result that heat-health warning systems have played an extremely important role in reducing deaths, including free water and reflective roof paint, indicating their efforts to cut heat deaths to zero are having an impact. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references present in the page present an in depth coverage of the subject (WP:SIGCOV). The temperatures have reached near maximum level ever recorded in history which will ensure lasting notability (WP:LASTING). Atleast 17 people have died and this is not the end of heat wave. Pratyush (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to List of heat waves#2019. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with heatwave and other seasonal meteorological phenomenons is that there are not going to be a lot to write about them, so unless one is an unprecedented event, I don't think we should have an article for each. And, yes, it is important, but if that happens every year, we are not going to document similar things each year in a separate article, there simply won't be anything left to write about besides basic informations, all the rest aren't going to be so different. This is especially so when this is such an early time to write anything about it or even know if it is important. Viztor (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP, Spinningspark, Johnbod, Barkeep49, and PratyushSinha101:, If something happens regularly, that doesn't mean it's not important, but it does means we either have to repeat a lot things, like 90%, in these articles or we are left with simple facts. Viztor (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't exclude events because they happen regularly. We base inclusion on whether they have lasting notability. We have multiple articles on hurricanes and earthquakes for every year going back decades. Notable heat waves are much rarer than those events. They do not occur every year, or even most years, by any means, although they are becoming more frequent. SpinningSpark 10:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things that happen regularly: sporting competitions, elections, television programs . . . need I go on? Simple regularity doesn't make something not notable. Lack of significant coverage and lasting impact makes an event non-notable. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As others have mentioned, you could say the same thing about hurricanes. We write multiple articles about those per year, even for the ones that cause 0 or minimal fatalities and even if the information in them is similar. See Tropical Storm Cindy (2017) and Tropical Storm Emily (2017). This heat wave has at least 28 dead since May 31, and it's still going on. Plus, each heat wave will have a different background or "meteorological history", different areas affected, different temperatures for each area, different number of fatalities and damage, and a government response or preparation specific to the situation. There's already plenty of information out there to differentiate this one, I think we just haven't given it enough research or focus. Merlin^s orca 13:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Merlinsorca:This should not be compared like that. When a huge hurricane came "with a name", which has an international standard, you know for sure it is notable. However, this is not the case for heat wave, which is unnamed and has no international standard, and in most cases rather normal weather phenomenon, this is summer, and only notable in extreme cases. It is impossible to assert importance based all there is when it has only began, and have not reached its peak, We can't WP:CRYSTAL know if it is important. I will reserve my judgement for later months.Viztor (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that we can only cover things that have "names" strike me as incorrect. We have tornado related coverage and those don't have names. Bigger picture, I agree I would have preferred to see the article wait to be created but it was created and the heatwave continues. The fact that we have ongoing high quality RS from around the world covering it suggesting that it is indeed out of the ordinary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: @Barkeep49: Also, after reading up on this subject, I don't believe the article was created too soon. The heat wave has been going on since May and had already killed dozens of people. As of today there has been: near record high >50 degree temperatures; water poured on melting streets; additional deaths/injures in fights due to water shortages; police being deployed. All of which has been amply covered in reliable sources. Merlin^s orca 00:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I really thought it was TOOSOON I'd have voted something like draftify or delete. My overall assessment is in-line with you that this is a notable event. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted by people here, for a publication to have a page it needs to meet a notability guideline first and not all of them do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu Tribune

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. No credible secondary sources cover the subject. IFJ and CPJ are circular references (IFJ and CPJ listing instances of them being mentioned in Kathmandu Tribune is attempted to use to validate Kathmandu Tribune's notability). It is a promotional article for a website that is trying to establish its identity as a legitimate news source. So far, the only indication of notability is this wikipedia article itself. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP. There are a few sites with passing mention of Kathmandu Tribune, but I'm not finding any Reliable Sources with significant independent coverage about it. Alsee (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a new digital news media and this is the second time that so-called editors are abusing their power. The administrators should understand that new media companies emerge in any part of the world and one need not be New York Times or The Guardian to have their Wikipedia page. I am sure administrators will look into this like they have supported previously. And why not delete this page too? Naya Patrika Would any foreigners know that his newspaper exists in Nepal? What logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:Other stuff exists are not good arguments on a deletion discussion. Wikipedia doesn't care about supporting an emerging business or anything. Wikipedia is a collection of information that is already notable. SeeWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Editing is not done based on emotions. As much as we'd personally like to support independent emerging media, wikipedia is not a place to assert our personal/political/socio-political opinion on what wikipedia should be. We work with the wikipedia that is, not the wikipedia we wish it were. Usedtobecool ^TALK 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you might want to see WP:Sockpuppet if you are contributing to same discussions, articles, etc. using different accounts and IPs at different times. WP:COI has information on how to approach contributing to wikipedia articles and topics you might have a personal stake on. Usedtobecool ^TALK 15:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Not relevant to the discussion but) Since you are pulling the Nepal card, I can assure you I am from Nepal and live in Nepal; and if we are to appeal to evidence that might not be accessible to foreigners; or it's your word against mine, I will bet my life on it that Kathmandu Tribune is a long long way away from becoming any sort of a reputed news publication. It's currently indistinguishable from any number of news blogs or other blogs for that matter; except for the amount spent on the graphic designer. Usedtobecool ^TALK 15:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NCORP. The few citations in the article don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH and appear to just be a WP:NOTEBOMB. I couldn't locate any WP:SIGCOV during my own search outside the article. Orville1974 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added Nepal News Network International (AfD discussion) to the open AfD discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Subject does not meet any form of notability. Searches through google and news provided no coverage results let alone signficant coverage. ogenstein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Two of the cites are organizations looking for mentions of themselves. starship .paint (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kelly (fighter)

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter who has not fought in any top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Coverage doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Garcia

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

Looks like WP:ONEEVENT to me. Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Just WP:ONEEVENT and nothing more. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2013 Moore tornado - WP:ONEEVENT is not, primarily, a delete rationale. Instead the whole point of WP:ONEEVENT is that you should instead either rename the article to the event or merge it into an appropriate target article about the event because the article is basically about the event, not the person. In this case the clear target for merging is 2013 Moore tornado which covers the tornado that destroyed Garcia's house. Not all the content should be merged as some of it obviously isn't encyclopedic, but the basic story of Garcia does appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (CBS, The Oklahoman). FOARP (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - no point to merge. Thousands of houses destroy in tornadoes incident just like soldiers dies in war. No every soldier has an article in Wikipedia so it the destroyed house in a tornado. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we still have articles about servicemen who died in wars who were notable (sure, WP:WAX). The grounds used here are WP:ONEEVENT, not failure to reach WP:GNG which was not alleged. At any rate, even if WP:BASIC isn't met that doesn't matter if we're merging since the requirement for including something in an article is not that it should be worthy of a stand-alone article.

PS - this nom is a case-study of the problems with using WP:ONEEVENT as a delete rationale. It just was never intended to be used this way. It was always concerned primarily with the article title. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment To compare fallen soldiers who protect and service their countries, who have articles in Wikipedia, and to add a content of a public individual whose house got destroyed from natural event is far from reasonable nor right to justify your "merge" debate. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You invoked the comparison. I was merely pointing out that, yes, we do have articles about “soldiers [killed] in war” as well as about the wars in which they died. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*CommentThose fallen soldiers do have articles / content added in Wikipedia pass the notability do have "historical impact" in wars / countries relations and WP:NOTTEMPORARY as of houses destroyed or cars damaged by storms. That is what I meant by "far from reasonable nor right to justify your merge debate". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But again, no-one is arguing that this article necessarily has stand-alone notability. It doesn't need to have stand-alone notability to be merged into another article. And if you meant WP:NOTTEMPORARY (PS - I think you mean WP:SUSTAINED), well, I do note that the news media were still reporting on her story even six months after the tornado (1 2 3) and that she was discussed in a book published in 2014 and 2015. TL;DR - she was the subject of multiple years of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. FOARP (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Just a many boxer, mma fighter, basketball players suffered injuries such as broken their obiter in 8 pieces, broken limps, tender completely tearing off from their bones and those individuals do have a page in Wikipedia and the info is well sources and do continued talk about in media due to such injury prevent them from their next title defenses or final playoff, it does not mean it it is included in the page content, let a alone a non notable individual lost their home in a storm/tornado which it happens thousand of time for the last decade just in US alone which play little significant as whole in the article. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quality is too poor to merge (no citations). The tornado article claims $2 billion worth of damage and 24 fatalities. Why would this survivor be worth mentioning above all the rest? Blumpf (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twin sort algorithm

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

I'm not at all clear why this is notable It seems to be intended only to promote the recent research of Devireddy, with no indication why anyone else should care Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the only source that's not just standard references for background material is a journal on Beall's list, you know it's worse than merely non-notable research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if anyone can show that this work receives attention by professionals in the field, however as a programmer I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. If I understood the paper correctly, this algorithm is already known as Odd–even sort. I also believe there is a severe error in the paper. An algorithm with (n-1)*(n/2) performance is not O(NlogN), it is O(N^2). Our article on Big O notation explains that. For large list sizes any O(N^2) algorithm will have catastrophically slow runtime on any standard computer. On massively parallel hardware it can have a runtime of N, but this is already standard knowledge in the field of parallel-sorting algorithms. Alsee (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our Wikipedia:no original research policy is designed to prohibit things that have not yet escaped their inventors/creators and become acknowledged by the rest of the world as a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. In conjunction with our requirement for Wikipedia:reliable sources, this is intended to prevent us accepting things merely upon the say-so of people with no evidence of peer review and fact checking by people with established known reputations for accuracy.
Alsee does not provide a rationale for deletion, but shows the rationale for these policies. This paper has clearly not been peer reviewed by a reputable journal. Any half-way decent peer review would have caught and rejected a claim to have just invented the odd-even sort in 2014. Moreover, this is one of the journals that the world has come to consider to have a bad reputation.
So this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because the only source is one person (I have my doubts about the claimed co-authors.) with no established reputation for accuracy publishing via a route where no peer review took place, an unreliable source; and no-one else acknowledging this by dint of publishing more themselves, a lack of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
(See Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Oregon State University/Wikipedia - Universally Shared, Edited by Whom (Spring) for why I have laid this out in detail. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable5 and User:Uncle G/On sources and content.)
Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alsee. Non-notable and apparently poor work academically to boot. SpinningSpark 23:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted by participants here, the coverage needs to be about a topic before we can write a page on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Budhathoki

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

As perWP:GNG. The paper deceptively cites a zillion pages which are all articles authored by the subject himself and not the articles discussing the subject so as to establish notability. The page was created by User:Dansong22 which is signed(?) "ArunBudhathoki" making this a suspected autobiography by a user with undisclosed COI (I can't find the declaration). The article is promotional. There are two major contributors to the page, the other being User:Ozar77 who also created related pages Kathmandu Tribune and Nepal Tribune Media (which is currently facing an AfD discussion itself.) I suspect User:Ozar77 is also a sockpuppet or a paid editor (based on a brief perusal of their talk page: potentially lucrative pages that the user has created and discussions that it has elicited and actions taken on them) of the same person Arun Budhathoki. Their talk page is filled with posts suspecting COI, also. Please advise if there's sufficient evidence to suspect that, and if there is, what further actions can be taken. (I apologise if you can't suspect sockputtery publicly like this and I will remove it if that is the case. Appreciate any advice.) Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of passing WP:GNG on merit - HalfLifeDelta 12:37, 4 Jun 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed two sockpuppet keep-votes and comments by the IP and sockmaster account. IP and sockmaster now blocked.

KeepThere are hundreds of wikipages on journalists and writers -- so would you delete all of them? For example there are hundreds of Wikipages like this one Krishna Jwala Devkota so why aren't you deleting it and attacking this page only? DEAR ADMINISTRATONS PLEASE TELL ME WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? About his recent work on The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/arun-budhathoki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/28/walking-over-bodies-mountaineers-describe-the-carnage-at-the-top-of-mount-everest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC) — 27.34.68.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and/or WP:OTHERCONTENT are not considered valid arguments in a deletion discussion. In other words, if there are articles just as bad, they might deserve a deletion discussion as well. Delete or Keep on one article is not an automatic delete or keep on any arguably similar other articles. Also, I would encourage you to reveal all connected IPs and IDs you might be using to participate on same articles, talk pages and discussions. See WP:Sockpuppet. You should also declare any conflict of interest you have on any article you are contributing to. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To help answer "WHY IS THIS HAPPENING", if you look at the top right of the page you will find a box saying "New to AfD? Read these primers!". The links in there should help explain things. Alsee (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepQuestioning The Himalayan Times is so weird...really? Why don't you ask them then whether who wrote it? Your logic is invalid. So does these people qualify to be in Wikipedia? Deepak Adhikari Category:Nepalese journalists Prisoner of an ipad. Arun Budhathoki ISBN 9-788182-500570 2014 Paper pp.64 Rs.195. http://niralapublications.com/publications/ real publisher not fake one and not bought for few dollars as you claim invited by Sharjah Book Fair: https://www.aus.edu/media/news/international-authors-visit-aus-during-sharjah-book-fair interview in Bangladesh newspaper: https://en.rtvonline.com/others/interview/2046/I-dont-write-poems-it-comes-spontaneously-to-me/print — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Opinion:It is clear you have a grudge or some personal issues with the writer or you have been paid by someone to do this. And you wrote this: " I have searched for this person with all search terms I could think of, in Roman as well as Devanagari script. Finally, a fallacious argument: Nor have I or anyone I know of ever heard of him (I should as a resident compatriot)". So you work for The Kathmandu Post prolly a writer who has published book, right? no wonder why you are so obssessed to delete this page...and Why haven't your proposed deletion for these pages then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nepalese_journalists as you are an expert in JOURNALISM AND KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW MEDIA WORKS IN NEPAL. YOU ARE JUST ABUSING YOUR EDITOR POWER. AND I HOPE ADMINISTRATORS WILL NOTICE THIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You chose to challenge me here, at one place, where I was actually arguing your side. LOL! In any case, AfD is not a vote, closing administrators always look at the merit of the arguments; and whether contributing editors are taking sides on emotions, with malice, or per COI. If we were all a syndicate of 20 editors conspiring against one person- you, the end result would still go in your favor. Also, editors don't have any powers to abuse. You and I have all the same rights. I don't use my rights to work exclusively on less than half a dozen pages related to one person alone. That is the only difference, one which I'm sure anyone, admin or not, will notice when they but scratch the surface. And, btw, would you like to declare any COI or sockpuppetry at the moment? Usedtobecool ^TALK 07:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyYou are on my side? really? that's hilarious...you've been attacking only this page and pages associated to this page...are you uncomfortable now that I have exposed that you work for The Kathmandu Post? Are you acting on behalf of your institution or an individual? Because you are only attacking this page. FYI, I only have access to this username. I know you don't have power to abuse but your persistent motive and your use of English (and I know who writes that way in The Kathmandu Post), and your activism against a journalist doesn't make it so. Can I assume you are a feature editor of The Kathmandu Post? Because your writing style matches his. So are you going to accept you work for The Kathmandu Post as you confessed that you are a 'resident compatriot'. I never challenged you...nor do I care about your LOL because you dodged my question when I said you work for TKP. Now, if you are a journalist too of TKP then say it?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my English can pass off as that of a "feature editor" of one of the national newspapers of the country, I can see how foreigners would have trouble finding these papers credible. Thanks for the compliment though. Usedtobecool ^TALK 10:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that you should deny sockpuppeting in exactly the thread where you've been replying to a conversation as two different users. Even when you don't sign your comment, it gets signed by a bot, and here, it is for all to see Ozar77 replying to a conversation with IP 27.34.68.251. Just for your peace of mind though, these articles were brought to my attention by Alsee and my contributions' history will attest to that. Usedtobecool ^TALK 10:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is at the center of several open AFD's (Nepal Tribune Media (AfD discussion), Kathmandu Tribune (AfD discussion), The Applicant (AfD discussion) and a redirect placed on Nepali Tribune. There is clear evidence of promotional COI. Of the set of articles, this one comes the closest to a credible claim as Notable. Arun Budhathoki appears to be a reasonably successful reporter, who has done work for a variety of Notable publications. However the profession of reporter does not in itself satisfy our Notability criteria. Our standard for Notability is not whether someone writes, it is whether they are written about by others in Reliable Sources. Arun Budhathoki has also published poetry and fiction, however anyone can buy an ISBN for a few dollars and publish anything. Again, the standard for notability is whether others have written about Budhathoki or written about his work. Reviewing all of the REFs in the article may seem daunting (see WP:BOMBARDMENT), however it is immediately obvious that most of them are written by Budhathoki, and they can quickly be skipped when checking for Notability. Of the potentially Reliable Sources not written by Budhathoki, the best one appears to be thehimalayantimes/Himalayan News Service discussing his poetry. However thehimalayantimes/Himalayan News Service runs blatant promotional press releases, severely undermining any weight it would have as a source for objective independent critical note. Alsee (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion:I trust THT to generally be as accurate as they can in their reporting. Nothing other than news and editorial from Nepali news sources (even the most reputed ones) can be trusted, especially not on online media. However, this was reported as news. It is possible they were paid to count this event as news. Or someone high up might have owed someone favour. It's also as likely that THT needed content to fill the space. However, none of those hypotheses are necessary. The event was reported as news and THT abides by the principles. All the praises are quotes from another attending the event. other things are quote by the primary source. The reporting part was on that event having occurred and the book having been published by Cyberwit. If its a slow news day, Nepali media will cover any event. But, I'd count this one as a news event as covered by THT; without betting significant equity on the proposition that there is no way THT didn't have COI in publishing this one. Either way, all news services have some COI, arguably, on everything they publish. So, we can't make such judgements ourselves. Usedtobecool ^TALK 18:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:BASIC & WP:AUTHOR , i don't see any reason for this article to be nominated for AfD, I also find that he have enough more content with which the article can be edited and expanded elaborately since his recent Coverage was published and was trending on The Guardian Shringhringshring^📞 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shringhringshring as I commented above, of the related set of articles I think this comes the closest to being Notable. I'm interested in your comment about coverage, and that the article can be expanded. I might reverse my !vote if you can point me to coverage about Budhathoki. If you are merely referring to coverage-of-an-unrelated-topic which was written by Budhathoki, then that is unhelpful. The profession of reporter does not inherently satisfy our Notability guideline. A reporter becomes Notable when the world takes Note of them, when independent authors write significant content about him and his work. Then we summarize what they say about the subject. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No. This individual does not meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:JOURNALIST. I tried finding enough to meet any of the categories with no success. Publishing books, by itself, is not enough. Having a few republished articles is not enough. No one is providing WP:SIGCOV of this individual in a WP:RS. I've just added Nepal News Network International (AfD discussion) to the list of ongoing AfD discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a published journalist in itself does not satisfy WP:BIO. I don't see any articles "about" the subject, just articles written by him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles written by the subject don't count as reliable sources to establish this subject's notability. One can see that those are the vast majority in this article. starship .paint (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - A google search did not produce any instances of significant coverage. A news search only provided articles written by the subject, which doesn't count towards notability or every reporter would become notable on their first day. I don't see that subject meets Basic or Author, per above. ogenstein (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AirSwap

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency company. Blumpf (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is notable and lists more than two reliable sources. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sourcing is ehh, but a full article in Bloomberg as well as CNBC is surprisingly good - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just build up to their ICO though. They were published in late September and the ICO was on October 10. "A start-up is raising funds for a cryptocurrency exchange — by selling a cryptocurrency" "This 31-Year-Old Is Trying to Revolutionize Cryptocurrency Trading". Blumpf (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, hence "weak" - David Gerard (talk) 06:20, 5 June 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, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music Promo Today

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, provided sources are PR, blog posts and Forbes contributors (i.e. blog posts again). The one ok source is the coverage in Respect Magazine, but even that is mostly just an interview with the founders. I couldn't find anything better online. I'm not really sure why there's two citations about TikTakTo, as it does not appear to be related to the subject. I had previously filed G11, which I still think was justified based on the PR nature of virtually all of the sources cited, but it was declined. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heavily promotional with no indication of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd argue this is a hair shy of unambiguous advertising (WP:G11) and needs to go. Ericwg (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH Orville1974 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rosguill, it's simply that TicTacTo was founded by the same two people as Music Promo Today, so it's a desperate attempt to add WP:INHERITED notability to a non-notable subject. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the creator for suspected undisclosed paid editing. MER-C 11:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blinds.com. So that people who need the history can copy material from it; Djflem's argument hasn't attracted opposition but the consensus is clearly in favour of getting rid of the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Steinfeld

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

Biography with sourcing primarily to blogs, interviews, press releases (via PRNewswire) and the company he founded. GNews returns nothing but name-drops and press releases (string: "Jay Steinfeld" Houston). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — seems like promotion, same throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyNotSarcasm (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional advert that is a case of WP:PROMO with most of the content coming from a promotional entry on an unreliable blog site, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blinds.com as that page could use the history provided here.Djflem (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gold-collar worker

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and outside of the book that coined this term it appears it has not received significant coverage or usage. WP:SIGCOV I can find a few examples of usage but most seem more intended to introduce the term than use it generally. ex. Havard Business Review This article seems to more be promotional of this as jargon in that sense than encyclopedic. There are some conflicting definitions when you search "Gold collars are found in specialized fields of law and medicine – a reference, perhaps, to the high salaries these professions command." [20] "a neologism which has been used to describe either young, low-wage workers who invest in conspicuous luxury, or highly skilled knowledge workers, traditionally classified as white collar, but who have recently become essential enough to business operations as to warrant a new classification." see self.gutenberg.org/articles/Gold-collar_worker "A gold-collar worker is a highly skilled multidisciplinarian who combines the mind of a white-collar worker with the hands of a blue-collar employee. Armed with a solid grounding in mathematics and science (physics, chemistry, and biology), these “gold-collar” workers—so named for their contributions to their companies and to the economy, as well as for their personal earning ability—apply that knowledge to technology." [21] A page on Wikipedia copying the definition word for word from the Havard Business Review article linked above. Phil (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Phil (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely not-a-dictionary material. This is the kind of thing that seems to exist on wikipedia so someone can use it by claiming "well it's on wikipedia..." Ericwg (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One tin-collar WP:NEOLOGISM that no one is rushing to spread. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is not in particularly common use, and when it is used it doesn't necessarily carry the meaning described here. For example, this article describes Carlos Ghosn, former chairman of Nissan, as "typical of the ‘gold-collar workers’ – the cadre of top bosses who have multi-million pound pay packages, couture-clad second wives and private jets." Yet this article says that "Gold-collar workers need the mind of a white-collar worker but the hands of a blue-collar one .... Think of the maintenance technician who repairs aircraft systems at Southwest Airlines; the manufacturing technician at Intel; and the medical technologist who operates laboratory equipment and analyzes test results at Memorial Hermann Cancer Center." Two quite different uses, but neither of them matches the use in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The Ahnapee Record, The Ahnapee Record (August 30, 1877). "The New Episcopal Church". The Ahnapee Record.

[2] Pallavi Sudhir, Abhimanyu; Knöpfel, Rahel (23 October 2015). "PhysicsOverflow: A postgraduate-level physics Q&A site and open peer review system". Asia Pacific Physics Newsletter. 04 (1): 53–55. doi:10.1142/S2251158X15000193. ISSN 2251-158X.

[3] ttps://www.pro-physik.de/restricted-files/86776. Retrieved 5 June 2019. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] "A theoretical physics FAQ". www.mat.univie.ac.at. Retrieved 5 June 2019.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]