Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 June	12 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Athaenara: CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Abhishek) in violation of ban or block). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avi J

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

Highly advertorialized article about a musician, whose claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC are not properly referenced. No reliable sources that can support notability. Sumitpatelster (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 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) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Gibson

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

The subject does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Current mayors of surrounding Sydney councils do not have wiki entries. Final reference is broken, remaining 2 references from a single source. Link to web site is broken. Content too brief, only two sentences. Mayoral incumbency info is already available at North Sydney Council. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mayors of local government areas in Australia (which are not the city government itself, but what North American or British readers would understand as borough councillors below the level of the main citywide government) are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing as mayors, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass the "subject of significant press coverage" test. That bar is not cleared by every mayor or councillor in the world who can show two local press hits, because every local mayor or councillor in the world can always show two press hits — at this level of prominence, the notability test is the ability to show a volume and depth and range of press coverage that expands to the point that she would have a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of local government areas. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an LGA is the third tier of Government in Australia, we have Federal Government(National), State Governments(NSW, QLD, WA, etc), the next tier is Local Governments of which this person is a mayor. Note that some of these local government areas can cover land areas bigger than many countries. A list article all mayors from an LGA is ok, but an alternative primary reason for notability is generally needed for LGA Mayors, being mayor would only lift a one other event person to notability. Gnan garra 18:41, 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) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PHP JSON Parser

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

Not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Rabin.r and User:Parisa700 are sockpuppets of User:MrNewWritter and they are trying to create articles about Seyyed Ali Mohammadiye (author of PHP JSON Parser and LMPHP). They are blocked in fawiki. -- ARASH PT talk 22:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Sarminhamidi (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any notability here, only 19 stars in github!! --SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable software. Viztor (talk) 23:49, 17 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) 00:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JoomlaLMS

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

still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An extension based on Joomla, and now it is not even provided on that platform. Doesn't meet NPRODUCT (or the essay of NSOFT). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT, and does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:49, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plogger

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

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Quite promotional in tone and style, with nary a third-party source helping establish notability to be seen.TH1980 (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly not notable, no reliable source reports from google search. I'm pretty sure if we were to include all libraries, Wikipedia would explode. Viztor (talk) 12:27, 22 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. Lack of multiple (discovered, not presumed) sources that meet WP:GNG requirements. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TinyButStrong

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

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis that sources like this do exist and there are probably more hidden behind web.archive and the like. I'm rather persuaded by a lot of the keep arguments in the previous afd while also having to acknowledge that I can't find anything beyond what the original author linked in that first afd. Nole (chat·edits) 00:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. I found no new sources on this topic in a WP:BEFORE search I did and we do not keep articles based on vague beliefs that better sources might exist and be found one day. That is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:51, 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 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 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. 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 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 [1], California Sunday [2], and LA Times, among others. [3] 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. 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. Tone 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Singh (Politician)

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

I don't see him as politician yet he is the son of MLA, himself he is not MLA nor MP fails WP:GNG also fails WP:POLOUTCOMES Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why would multiple Indian media report on his change of party affiliation? He does not appear to hold elected office, and I cannot tell if he has run for office in the past. I am reluctant to |vote on an article with references from three reliable sources when I don't understand why these three media outlets think he's important enough to write about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the sources verifies that his political role was as youth president of his hometown's local chapter of a political party. This is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, however, and the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to make him a special case over the thousands upon millions of similar people in the world: one is a short blurb about his party switch as a coda to an article that's fundamentally about somebody else, and the other two are WordPress blogs, not established reliable source media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 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. Tone 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Mlambo

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not competed in tier one promotion and fails WP:MMANOT and WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights (and only one second tier one). Coverage consists of typical sports reporting and fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 15 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Groundswell Effect (Business)

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

Roundabout way of attempting to publicize the non-notable Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff, and their P.O.S.T Framework concept Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Groundswell (book). The concept is cited by others, but not much. Two line mention with citation in reliable source here. Another one, seemingly more in-depth, here. Overall, rather borderline for notability. Next to nothing on regular google. I couldn't find a single review on Google Scholar for "Groundswell. Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies" BUT the book has 5 reviews in Lib Genesis ([4]) which I recently found to be a much better search engine for book reviews :) Which lead me to conclude the book is notable, and then I noticed we already have Groundswell (book). So how about merging this concept, of unclear standalone notability, there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 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 Per WP:PROMO. This article is just a way to advertise a business concept the creator of the article desires be promoted and the article even links to his own user sandbox, which is a mirror copy of this article. Wikipedia is citing Wikipedia as a source here. It's clear there is some COI going on with this article. The article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:58, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent Students Rowing

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

Student club, no in-depth coverage, passing mentions, self-published sources, etc. Fails WP:NORG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed lacks notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to lacking independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:44, 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 speedy keep. Meets WP:SK#1: Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete arguments (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReMarkable

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Its product, the tablet, may be notable, and the article is actually a confusing mix of the two topics, but frankly outside infobox it's close to a WP:TNT mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced stub. The in depth sources now include: Business Insider, Laptop Magazine, Digital Trends, Popular Mechanics, Gizmodo, and others. Very, very clearly meets and exceeds WP:GNG. The article includes both content on the company and on its namesake products. Could separation/detail between either be improved, sure!, all articles have room for improvement. But deletion is not rewrite, so keep it! XavierItzm (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @XavierItzm: You are still missing the point - their tablet may be notable, but the company is not. The sources you mention review the tablet, not the company. If you or anyone else wants to rewrite it as a tablet article, I'll likely withdraw this. But the article, currently, is about the company (with tablet info thrown in), and the company fails at notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, unfortunately, it is you who is misunderstanding policy. Deletion is not improvement. You could have moved the article or you could have re-structured the article, which, granted, like all Wikipedia entries, has room for improvement. Yet you insist on deleting an article which clearly passes the WP:GNG, based on massive WP:DEPTH coverage by numerous WP:RS. Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have little love lost for spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 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 02:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did quick and dirty rewrite changing article subject from the company to its product. The article seems to be still somewhat promotional, but notability should not be an issue now (eg. I found this review in the German ct magazine: [5] and another quite big review on golem.de [6]). Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Rewrite by Pavlor addresses the issue. Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that the result ought to be:

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected.

cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 07:22, 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. Seems like the consensus is that GNG is not met - the keep arguments on that point are vague - so NACTOR is the only guideline that could justify the inclusion (under WP:N a topic can meet either to allow for inclusion). It seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether the NACTOR guideline is met, as they have starred in several notable works but they are not necessarily well covered. I don't see a policy-based reason for preferring one side of that argument over the other, so this is a no consensus. With respect to Wikipedia:Too soon, that's an essay, so it would not necessarily override NACTOR based arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandile Mahlangu

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

WP:TOOSOON Coverage does not meet WP:GNG. I searched his name in DuckDuckGo and Google, and found nothing of substance. I don't think the filmography claimed in the article meets WP:NACTOR.

Evaluation of the sources provided:

[7] is an interview on a local news site.
[8] is an ok amount of coverage, but the source is unreliable per the disclosure on the source's terms and conditions page saying thebar makes no representations or warranties, whether express, implied in law or residual, as to the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, data and/or content contained on the website.

The rest of the sources are mere mentions _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject has played significant lead roles on two television series that air on notable TV channels [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], view and has played lead on a film alongside Vuyo Dabula, Deon Lotz, and Anriette Van Rooyen [14]. Has been featured on a radio show Touch HD. Passes WP:NACTOR #1 Ceethekreator (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ceethekreator (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Ceethekreator, that guideline says multiple notable films, television shows.... From my count, you've mentioned two TV series and one movie, which means that even if each of them were notable (which does not appear to be the case) we'd be barely scraping the guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill What makes a TV show/Film notable?. Please see WP:PW/NTV/WP:NTV. The Television shows are clearly notable per the WP:PW/NTV /WP:NTV guidelines. All the TV shows mentioned air on national television channels, SABC 1, Mzansi Magic and e.tv. Ceethekreator (talk)

Notability is demonstrated first and foremost by coverage in reliable sources. At any rate, looking at the article, I see three roles that at a glance look significant, one of which hasn't been released yet. This is a case of TOOSOON. If Mahlangu stars in an additional film or two, then I think NACTOR #1 will be more clearly satisfied. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Entertainer #1 is satisfied for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", apart from the Television shows and film. The subject has also been featured in several major TV commercials. (KFC, Debonairs Pizza, Halls, Sunbet International, Cell C and Stimorol). Ceethekreator (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a well-known actor in South Africa, playing on major television channels. A quick Google search did reveal several credible news sources discussing the subject and his roles. Ash Glover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hashmanza, could you share some examples? I have no intention of arguing for deletion if there's RS coverage lying around, but I genuinely could not find any when I searched online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator. I checked out the sources and they unfortunately are mostly passing mentions and/or local or puff pieces and nothing shows that he meets WP:NACTOR yet. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON I feel. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 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 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I checked out the sources are unreliable, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:51, 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 arguments made by Pirhayati (talk · contribs) convince me the bookshop is notable. I have added an {{Expand Persian}} template to the article accordingly. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toranjestan Soroush

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

Notability? Not here. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article on enWiki is threadbare, the Farsi-language article linked to it has several sources that appear to discuss the subject in detail. Machine translations are very poor, however, so I'll defer to editors who can actually read the sources if they disagree. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I noticed the Farsi article, an ordinary store on the street is unlikely to pass notability unless there is certain notable events linked to it. I'm inclined to delete until someone could inform me as to how this store is unlike the rest. Viztor (talk) 16:22, 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 02:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toranjestan is notable because it is a pioneer in its models in bookselling. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pirhayati, would you care to elaborate? Viztor (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, the references say it is a successful model in bookselling in Iran, for example this and this. This is important because there is an economic crisis in book market in Iran and bookstores are getting closed one after another. Second, this bookstore simply has "independent reliable references with significant coverage" then it is notable according to GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:42, 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. ~~Stating that you're planning to look for sources after the AfD closes isn't useful. More useful would have been to look for sources now and list them here at the AfD so people could evaluate them.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comment; I mis-read User:Hugsyrup's argument and reacted to something he didn't say. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh McDermott (police officer)

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

No indication of meeting WP:Notability guidelines. Small town local police office that was involved in shoot out with a gangster. No significant coverage about him, only mentions in articles about the gangster. noq (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I contested the prod and added some additional info and slightly better sources. The problem is that the sources primarily fall into two types: high-quality reliable sources such as published books, but that cover McDermott only in passing, and only in the context of Pretty Boy Floyd. Or lower-quality sources (blogs, the online historical society, etc.) that cover him in considerably more depth and expand to his whole career. I'm just about inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as worth keeping, and I'm planning to spend the time that this AFD is open trying to find better sources and improve the article, but I can certainly understand why it was nominated and wouldn't be particularly surprised by a delete result. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hugsyrup. If sources can't be found, then mentioning some of the sourceable biographical details in the article on the gangster seems like it would be appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what either of the previous two editors are seeing as notable. The story I see is small town police officer is roped in to help FBI search for suspect. I don;t see anything in that that is inherently notable. All the article says is he helped search for Floyd, he was not mentioned as being involved in the shoot out itself. The main sources would appear to be passing mentions and not significant coverage. What makes him stand out from all the other police officers involved in the seatch? noq (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 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) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At its best BLP1E, nothing besides the event and his resume. Viztor (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination & Viztor. Geoffroi (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and Viztor. Under WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited. The criminal he helped take down was notable, not this guy. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a WP:BLP1E, because it is not a BLP. The subject has been dead for 66 years. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 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. Consensus here appears to be that the awards do not satisfy the WP:ANYBIO significance criteria. And the sources offered were either not presented at all or have been argued to be inadequate with little opposition. Thus, delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Santini

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

Fails ENT and GNG. Awards are no longer a substitute for sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Google News link above turns up several articles, though Santini is not the main subject of them. -sche (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least two sources with decent coverage of her.[15][16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lack.of depth to those articles. We don't aggregate lots of weak sources to make up for the lwck.of really strong sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I disagree with your assessment of depth, WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" It's like you don't have any experience writing content on here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as '2018 Xbiz Award for Trans Performer of the Year' satisfies ENT per unique contributions to the field and being exceptionally prolific as well as a trans performer. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. It wouldn't even count for PORNBIO..Please provide evidence that this is a significant and well known award. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total and complete failure of any notability guideline we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NOTADIRECTORY, because the article subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC. The NYTimes piece is significant coverage of the website, not of Santini. The Houston local news piece – it's terrible what happened to her – but it's not significant coverage of her as an entertainer. It's a story about her being a victim of harassment and discrimination; it only briefly mentions what she does for a living. I'm not seeing anything in the article or finding anything online that approachers significant coverage to meet BASIC. Xbiz is a major adult industry award but so what? Awards don't establish notability for entertainers. – Levivich 04:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google news search brings up daily dot, papermag, dazed and the NYT article seems to go into sufficient biographic info as well. Rab V (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Links please Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The XBIZ awards are in abnormal numbers, even for quite ridiculous categories. However, if someone gets the title of best (male, female, transgender) performer of the year, I would tend to consider him/her noteworthy. Westmanurbe (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy is that argument founded!? PORNBIO has been eliminated and the award does not meet ENT. Do you have anything to passGNG? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in ANYBIO that a person could be notabile if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. In my humble opinion, the XBIZ Award for "Performer of the Year" is a well known and significant award in this field. Westmanurbe (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What RS backup is there suggesting this is a "well-known or significant" award? I can't find any coverage reporting on anyone winning this award, ever. – Levivich 23:49, 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 02:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominators correct analysis - Awards aren't replacements for sources - I'm unable to find anything of notability beyond the usual SELF-PUBLISHED drivel, Fails ENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the lack of sources in the article, in which the information provided is quite small. About the awards, not all of them are the same, and, always in my humble opinon, a person who won the title of "Performer of the Year" at the XBIZ Awards 2018, XBIZ Awards 2019 and AVN Awards 2019, like Santini did, colud be relevant according ANYBIO, having received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several time. Westmanurbe (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has repeatedly been rejected by consensus. Niche or specialized awards like "Girl-Girl Performer of the Year" and "BBW Performer of the Year" or the equivalent have been found to fail the "well-known/significant" standard. In addition, most (at least) XBiz Awards fail the significant prong of the test, since XBiz is a public relations business and has admitted (even touted) the fact that nominations for its awards are controlled by its clients. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:18, 17 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 Ohio#Earthquakes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Eastlake earthquake

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

Unremarkable event Dawnseeker2000 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to a list. No ongoing coverage and WP:NOTNEWS --94rain ^Talk 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No enduring notability. Just a news story and a minor one at that. Mikenorton (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ohio § Earthquakes, add USGS ref. Mapsax (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I included said information there as part of a larger edit. The only things not duplicated from the article in question were the media reference, the time (trivial), and the lack of injury/damage (implied). Mapsax (talk) 16:34, 13 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] 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.

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]