Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 July >

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Long

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Little more than a laundry list of nn videos. Survived AFD a decade ago based on porn industry awards, which are no longer alone sufficient to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's assessment is correct. In addition, my own independent searches for RS coverage came up empty. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely lacking significant coverage in actual independent reliable sources. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:21, 19 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. The subject should be rewritten, but there is a clear consensus to keep this article. Nower603 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry

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

Copied from a public-domain source. Clearly not an encyclopedia article in its current form (WP:DEL14) - there are details of recruitment but no claims of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the deletion proposal, but want to note there's probably a way to build an article around this topic. Read as a "don't keep in current form." SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Keep article has been much improved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On reading through the article I can't see anything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Of course it should have a lead section and internal links and otherwise have stylistic changes made to it, but I really can't see any reason why those improvements can't be made without deleting this, and why the current article doesn't serve readers better than nothing, which is what we would have if this was deleted. WP:MILUNIT suggests that we usually have articles about regiments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could format this, copy edit this, and add a couple additional sources, we'd have an article. Maybe draftify? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with this "if in doubt, draftify" idea that seems to have taken hold here. If we draftify it then nobody will see it and improve it, and it will be deleted under WP:G13 in six months. Now that the article is at AfD we should take a decision now, rather than just kick it down the road. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don´t you think you´re a little overzealous with your copyright-paranoia? The article has been created just yesterday, give the creator some time to work. Seriously. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable regiment per WP:MILUNIT with substantial combat service. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S.B.V. No.2, Palam Enclave

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

No reliable references for this primary+secondary school; the one given doesn't mention the school. [1] is the best I could find and is probably about the same school. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the school fails WP:ORG, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 26 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Singapore

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

WP:CRYSTAL - it's impossible to state with any degree of certainty that these events will occur in 2022. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and perhaps WP:OR given the distance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's possible to have a "2022 in X" article if there's a range of notable scheduled events, but none of the routine infrastructure development notices in the article seem to me to justify its existence. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:07, 12 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 speedy close . This AfD is a duplicate and a misspelling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PolicyGenius. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyGenius

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

The references do not substantiate that the business is notable Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. The article's content would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities.

The author has admitted conflict of interest (he is employed by the company as a media marketer). At best the page is blatant corporate advertising to gain SEO.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disregarding the person associated with the company, there's only one, and "weak", keep opinion here. Sandstein 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyGenius

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

The references provided do not substantiate that the business is notable Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. The content of the article would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities.

Blatant conflict of interest (the author is self-admittedly employed by this organization as a media marketer).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have properly completed steps 2 and 3 of the AfD process on behalf of the nominator. On the merits of the nomination I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obvious WP:COI and WP:NPV issues. However, those warrant clean-up rather than deletion as long as the subject of the article meets the notability threshold. Neutral regarding deletion, for now. Paisarepa (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: What have you found notable that keeps you neutral? Eliminate the WP:COI and WP:NPV and there's nothing left. No notability in the content, and every reference leads to a sponsored page. You can find dozens of common, similar businesses that sell insurance online. If like PolicyGenius, they sell something, have founders, and received investments, then they are surely missing out on Google page reputation by not having a Wikipedia article about them that links back to their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The company was profiled by Forbes, for one example of significant coverage by a reliable, independent secondary source. Additionally, the company was the primary focus of the articles by Lifehacker, Investopedia, and Venturebeat. The notability threshold is that the company must have been "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It appears to me that the references support its notability so I am leaning towards keep. How are you determining that the references are sponsored pages? I'm not seeing indications that they are native advertising, but I could be missing something. Paisarepa (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An analysis of the references (some also mentioned by Paisarepa above) in the article as follows:

Venturebeat article specifically fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders and contains no independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and/or fact checking.

Fastcompany article - same as above.

Forbes article contains no "independent content" relevant to the company, relies entirely on quotations/interview and fails for the same reasons as above.

Investopedia article (wayback version) fails for the same reasons as above.

LifeHacker article has not been written by a staff writer (possible RS concerns) but the article itself only gives a brief overview of how to use the website with a screenshot and contains no information about the company itself, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Xconomy article is based on an company announcement about succeeding in getting funding, fails WP:ORGIND.

WSJ Blogs article fails as blogs are not accepted as RS. Also fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the Xconomy reference above.

LinkedIn article fails for the same reasons as above.

Techcrunch article fails for the same reasons as above.

All in all, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any articles that do. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We understand that our Policygenius Wikipedia page hasn’t been updated in a while and included only basic information, but there’s a lot that has happened since that original version. We’ve included information below that will help provide credibility and can be used to clean up what is currently displayed on the page. First, some insights around our co-founder and CEO, Jennifer Fitzgerald:

She is the Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year New York 2019, one of Fast Company’s 100 Most Creative People in Business for 2018 and is one of only four women founders in Fintech to raise more than $50 million in funding. Jennifer has shared insights in major publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and more.

Features in credible and authoritative news outlets:

Inc: How This Founder Overcame Hundreds of Rejections to Finally Raise $52 Million

Inc: Starting a Business? Ask These 5 Essential Money Questions First

Entrepreneur: This Entrepreneur Shares How to Name Your Company — or Fix a Bad Name

Forbes: One Of The Five Female Fintech Founders To Have Raised Fifty Million In Funds

MarketWatch: Short-term health insurance plans are dirt cheap for good reasons

Goop: Understanding Life Insurance — And Getting the Best Policy

Other awards and accolades of Policygenius:

EY Announces Winners for the Entrepreneur Of The Year 2019 New York Award additional source

Inc Best Places to Work 2018 and 2019 additional source

Fast Company The Most Creative People in Business 2018

100 Women Making Money, Creating Jobs and Changing the World — Top 100 Female Founders List

2018 Entrepreneur 360 List

In addition to the insurance marketplace, Policygenius also produces the Policygenius Magazine, which is editorially independent and regularly publishes content. The magazine received an honorable mention for best content series in Nov. 2018 and also regularly produces annual surveys on topics from health care to how couples and parents manage their money.

These surveys have been covered in major publications, including:

CBS Moneywatch: Deadline looms for Obamacare Open Enrollment

Houston Chronicle: Obamacare enrollment opens, but fate remains uncertain

Bustle: Couples Aren't Communicating About Money, New Survey Finds

Forbes: How to really save money on car insurance

The Knot: The One Thing You Should Do Postwedding for a Happier Marriage

Brides: The Financial Pros and Cons of Keeping Your Money Separate From Your Partner

FOX Business: Parents reveal how much they'd be willing to pay to stop their child's temper tantrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisdelame (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you Francoisdelamefor spending the time to put together these links in good faith. One issue is that the *volume* of links doesn't matter for the purposes of establishing notability - all that is required is a minimum of two links that meet the criteria. Your (and our) time would be much better served by providing links that met the criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the weight placed on in-depth significant and "independent content". The last one is often misunderstood but is summarised nicely in WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

This means that references that rely extensively on interviews, quotations and information provided by the company (e.g. these articles by Inc, Entrepreneur, Forbes and Goop) or references that are based on company announcements or PR announcements (e.g. PRNewsWire fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
Articles must also provide significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* (not on their chief executive/founder), therefore mentions-in-pass or inclusion in lists or brief profiles using company-provided information (e.g. Inc 2, MarketWatch, INC profile, Fastcompany CEO profile, Inc Women-in-business profile and Entrepreneur list) fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
Finally, articles that are based on company publications/reports have no independent content relating to the *company* (the topic of this article) and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

In summary, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: HighKing Thank you for your insights and guidance here. We’ve read over the notability requirements and now we’re sending along a few sources we believe meet these guidelines.

New York Times

Wall Street Journal

New York Times Francoisdelame (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francoisdelame, the best advice I can give you is to look for articles which talk about the company and which don't include quotations/interviews from the company/founder. For example, if you read any of the last three articles and ask yourself "What has the *journalist* said about the *company* (not the founder, etc) that comes from their own opinion/analysis/investigation?", you are left with next to nothing. It doesn't matter that the source is the NYT or WSJ if the journalist is simply printing soundbites from the company - this is not considered "independent content" for the purposes of establishing notability as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Company is no more notable than any other online insurance agency. The products they sell are commodities. Nor is the business model novel. (Given that, an independent expose about how they wrangled $50 million in venture capital would make the founders notable to me. Note that although Thanos posited an innovative product to attract their investors, it is now notable only for the expose.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As per Highking, there are no reliable sources, most of the references are blogs or written by freelancers/contributors. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I agree with Paisarepa that it has serious WP:COI and WP:NPV issues and there are some WP:GNG issues with some of the references but that these issues should also take into consideration of other references that prove notability. This means that it needs to be rewritten by a non-COI editor or two to get this article up to scratch ASAP. It seems to me that enough of the reference articles do support noteworthiness and dont have GNG issues, from what I can see from a cursory glance, such as the Wall Street Journal article or the TechCrunch article or the New York Times article. In short I think that deletion might be a bit cavalier, but then again I would say that as I am more of an inclusionist then a deletionist by default.--Discott (talk) 14:12, 24 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 delete. Unanimity that the subject fails notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco D'Macho

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Little more than a laundry list of NN videos and a pair of award citations that wouldn't even have satisfied the last version of PORNBIO. Also a licensing violation, since the base version of the text was an improper cut-and-paste userfication that didn't preserve the history of the originally deleted article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks significant coverage in truly independent reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:21, 19 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) Szzuk (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Skylab

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

Non-notable film, sources don't indicate notability (non-professional review and advert for opening) BOVINEBOY2008 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this 2019 documentary is a notable addition to the space documentary collection, is even now well sourced per its topic, seems to have had a NASA and astronaut involved opening, and is now one of 28 films listed at Category:Documentary films about the space program of the United States. Skylab is one of the major NASA programs of the 1970s, and to finally have a full documentary on this program of course fits within encyclopedic notability standards. Why not just put a citesneeded tag on it rather than go for a full deletion? I really dislike coming to these deletion discussions for things which are obvious notable keepers and just need a source or three. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a worst-case outcome would be a merge to Skylab#Documentaries, where it is already mentioned. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the request to the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should a "non-professional" review be excluded? When did policy change WP:RS like this? Also, el Reg is professional journalism, even if not usually reviewing films. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As a film, it needs to be review by professional reviews to be considered notable, per WP:NF guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a guideline, not a hard rule. There are plenty of completely un-notable films which have been professionally reviewed, and plenty of notable documentaries which didn't get a professional review in the first three months after their release. And, for all I know, it has been professionally reviewed. You're talking about a lack of a reference to such a review, not the non-existence of such a review. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where (even in WP:NF) does it require reviews to be professional in order to convey notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFO: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. BOVINEBOY2008 20:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" widely distributed"

So if it's not Disney, it's not notable? There's a whole world of specialist cinema, arthouse for one, almost any documentary for another (this is a documentary) which will never achieve the distribution of Toy Story, but are certainly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's sufficiently notable. If it isn't, there are a whole lot of article on less notable films which ought to go. I'm moderately annoyed that the director himself has made some edits, but they seem to be innocuous. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I expanded the article with what sources I could find using a search engine, however there isn't much. Some of these sources were not independent (i.e. a primary source from a museum which screened a preview and a review/summary from the NSS which happened to have been written by the film's technical advisor). While I would like to see more and better sources, at the very least a review/summary from Space.com, a Future plc holding which specializes in spaceflight news and is frequently syndicated by major networks, seems to show reliable and independent coverage as outlined in the wp:GNG.--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I've read and searched about this and I think it can do better in future, the sources are not that strong but good. It should be considered that the subject is very specific so for that the sources are good. As this is new a new documentary in future it can bring more sources and coverage, hopefully, Best. - Blake44 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and well sourced. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 19 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 delete. Consensus is that there aren't enough independent, reliable sources available to support an article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Abadilla

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

Fails GNG THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although article is unsourced, the subject appears to have also been (besides his role as the only Ambassador to Ireland from the Philippines) a senior civil servant at a national level within the Philippines government under Presidents Aquino and Duterte (including as an Undersecretary for Civilian Affairs and Security in the Department of Foreign Affairs in or around 2016-17 - the Undersecretary role seems to be an equivalent to a Deputy Secretary in a US Govt department) (for sources, see e.g. here, here, here). This article does seem to fit in with WP:POLOUTCOMES Bookscale (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even for ambassadors and senior civil servants, the notability test is still not just the ability to offer technical verification in the government's own self-published primary sources that the person held the claimed roles — the notability test remains the depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage the person did or didn't receive in media. Regardless of the notability claim being made, the notability test for people always remains dependent on the quality of the referencing that can be used to support the notability claim, but nothing that's been shown either in the article or in this discussion adds up to notability-making sourcing. Yes, these would be notable roles if he could be properly sourced for them — but no, they aren't "inherent" notability freebies that exempt him from having to have any reliable source coverage just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The state of an article (including lack of referencing) is not a reason for deletion necessarily - and only one of the sources I cited above is a Philippines government post. Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true that only one of them is a Philippine government post — but a second one is a post from the US embassy to the Philippines, and is thus still a government source rather than a notability-building reliable source. And the one that's actual media just namechecks his existence in a list without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and thus isn't a notability clincher all by itself if it's the only non-governmental real-media source you can show. And while it is true that a poorly sourced article can be spared the guillotine if it can be shown that the necessary type and depth and quality and range of reliable sourcing exists out there to improve the article with, that only comes into play if genuinely notability-supporting sources are actually located and shown — it is not true that any person gets exempted from having to have any notability-supporting sources just because the article claims something that sounds like it should be notable. The quality and range and depth and volume of sourcing that a person can show to support the notability claim is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably, it doesn't have sufficient level of notability; particularly by paying heed that it doesn't possess any/enough reference(s) to cover the article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Why presumably? Have you checked? Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have any Philippines-based editors checked this guy's notability? It would be good to get some input from them. Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - raising again whether any Philippines-based editors can make more-informed comments about the notability of the subject (all commenters involved to date are foreign, including me)? I've left a message at the Philippines-based noticeboard about this and would appreciate the AfD not being closed until a reasonable time has elapsed to allow anyone to comment here. Bookscale (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that the lack of Philippine-based comment is itself a form of comment, such as "none of the Filipino editors who have seen this feel strongly enough about it to disagree with the existing comments". Again, notability is not a question of what the article says, it's a question of how well the article references what it says — so it's entirely possible that Philippine-based editors just don't actually have anything new to add because the sources that would change the equation here just don't exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the "argument from silence". I thought it was worth asking because there may have been more local (or probably more importantly, local language) sources that might refer to him more closely that we international editors are not aware of. From the comment below it seems there may not be, which is fine - asking the question was clearly worthwhile. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a Filipinx editor, I can assert that there isn't enough "Significant coverage" for this official. It's possible there'll be more coverage in the future, but he seems to have been elevated to senior posts too recently to have picked up coverage. - Koakaulana (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Koakalauna - appreciate you contributing to this. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 25 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 redirect to South Shields#Rugby. Sandstein 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Shields RFC

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

Amateur rugby team that doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Shields#Rugby. Plenty of local and routine sources that mention the team, but I wasn't able to find anything that was sufficiently in-depth to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. However, it is a plausible search term, and we do have some information about the team at South Shields#Rugby, so a redirect seems a good alternative to deletion. Probably not worth a merge given that the article is entirely unsourced. Lowercaserho (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 26 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 redirect to John A. Stormer. Clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None Dare Call It Treason

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

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTQUOTE. Whilst this phrase is used very widely, there is no evidence at all that the phrase is notable in and of itself given on the page, nor did any show up in my WP:BEFORE, so it also fails WP:GNG. Recommend redirect to John Harington (writer). FOARP (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral about deletion, but this article is not a disambiguation page. If it survives AfD it should have the disambiguation tag removed, and an appropriate category applied. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a redirect, you should have just done it. It would have taken 2 fewer edits than an AFD nomination. Redirects do not involve the administrator deletion tool in any way, and any editor, even ones without accounts, can enact them. And Talk:None Dare Call It Treason, and possibly Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, is for the inevitable subsequent hashing out of which of the now two targets should be the redirect. AFD is for deletion as the name says. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John A. Stormer, since "none dare call it treason" is not covered on John Harington (writer) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 9 July 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) 12:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until somebody either writes an article on the very notable book, which this page could be merged into, or until this page is expanded into an article on that book, with this tect used in a section on the title and its source/origin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John A. Stormer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 18 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 no consensus. Despite two relists this has been a low traffic AfD. Small majority for the 'keep's but their arguments are balanced by the other reservations. I am not seeing a consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Dialogue and ADR for Feature Film

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

This is not notable as a standalone award and I would propose redirecting it to Motion_Picture_Sound_Editors#Golden_Reel_Awards which is what the entry on the DAB redirects to as well as the awards are not actually independently notable, however the creator has contested this so i'm left with AFD.

So, delete and redirect. I'm also bundling Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film with it.Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories rather than just one, keeping all of the information about every category in a single merged article about the overall program would make that article far too long to be useful. So standard practice for multi-category film, television, music or literary awards programs has always been that as long as the overall program is notable, each category should have its own standalone article regardless of any quibbles about whether that individual category is "independently" notable separately from the overall program, simply because that's the user-friendliest way to package the overall program. Try, for example, to imagine if none of the Academy Award categories had their own standalone articles, but instead all of the winners and nominees in every category were simply crammed into one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong omnibus article about the Academy Awards themselves: this would not be user-friendly or helpful to either readers or editors, so we split the information up for size management purposes, regardless of what anybody thinks about the standalone notability of any individual category. It's true that not every award category presented by the Motion Picture Sound Editors actually has its own standalone article yet, but that's precisely because getting them started is a new project being taken on by an editor within the past two weeks. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have an issue with 51 (fast count) out of 88 references, being IMDb that is user-generated and considered questionable sources. Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film has 5 references that are all IMDb. Surely we can do better so I hope there are plans to address with "the new editor" because if not there are all-around notability issues. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If publications like the Los Angeles Times and Variety announce the results, the awards are notable enough. The quality of some of the sources is not a valid reason to delete the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements alone are not coverage. We do not need an article for every category and subcat when we don't even have an actual article on the awards and even if we did, it's not a directory. There is no sustained coverage of this. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 16 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. Consensus is the topic is likely notable per NHOCKEY #3 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Watkins

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest North American league played was the ECHL which doesn't grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved, and the subject has none, so fails #3. EPIHL First All-Star does not qualify for #4 and never played in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship with Great Britain which fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He twice won the British Netminder of the Year, which is presented to the the top goalie regardless of the league. He won it while playing in the EPIHL over goalies who played in the top tier EIHL, twice. That appears to me to satisfy criterion #3 but I am not fully convinced. I will wait for others to chime in before I am persuaded one way or another.18abruce (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on 18abruce's description, I would interpret Watkins as meeting #3. It is clearly an odd situation, but if he was officially recognized as the best goalie in the country in competition with EIHL goalies, I'd have to give him credit for pre-eminent honors. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am comfortable with saying that he meets criterion 3 but I recognize that there is some ambiguity.18abruce (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ I agree with 18abruce that it would be reasonable to claim criterion 3 is met, but I have some concerns. First, does he look good to the writers because he's playing against lesser competition? Second, if he's better than all of the goalies in the higher league, why didn't any of those teams sign him? I'm inclined to think that the people who run hockey teams for a living are better judges of talent than local sportswriters. Just saying. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Djsasso makes a good point below. I also think the fact that he won that award twice is important, otherwise I might be inclined to cite WP:BLP1E. Although the article doesn't cite sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, it seems like that award should have generated some coverage. That he meets WP:NHOCKEY shows that this is another example that most of our sports notability criteria don't set a very high bar for notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember is that WP:NHOCKEY isn't about skill, its about how likely the player is to have news coverage. So does winning that award make him likely enough to get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as I think it can be argued that he ought to meet WP:NHOCKEY #3, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:48, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Low traffic AfD. No sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Hocevar

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

Only sources cited are press releases and routine stats directory-esqe pages, leaving a total absence of WP:RS. Races part-time in a series that does not satisfy WP:NMOTORSPORT #1. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – actually he does satisfy WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 1: Has driven at least 1 race in a fully professional series. Hocevar has raced in ARCA Menards Series which according to the article is a professional series. SSSB (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article it is, but the longstanding viewpoint of WikiProject NASCAR is that ARCA is not fully professional for a series that satisfies #1. If you would like to reevaluate that viewpoint, I would be open to starting a discussion at the WikiProject. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If its a long standing viewpoint I'll support delete below. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the response to my comment (above), if this series isn't considered proffesional by the relevent WikiProject then he fails the notabillity criteria. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 16 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 delete. Tone 13:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cookham Reach Sailing Club

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

The article is promotional and reads like an advertisement. As for sourcing, it is mostly Cookham itself. News searches find local articles. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The only reference is the subject's website, and the article does not read like an encyclopedic entry. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I read other Wiki entries for sailing clubs before creating this page and structured it in the same way, providing the same sort of information. When the article is about a club it is hard not to write an article about the club without including "advertising" information, because that is the nature of the organisation - information about it provides detail about what it does. Reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ship_Club. If you believe I need to change the content format, please can you suggest what I change? I will add more external references to the club as suggested. ...James

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether or not the article has promotional issues, the club itself does not appear to be notable. Of the sources present in the article already, the first five are unusable to establish notability - they're either from the club's own website, or simply directory entries for locations and/or events. The sixth one is more substantial, but does not actually talk about the club itself at all - it is entirely about an event that took place there. I did some searches for more sources, and was unable to find anything substantial. The few results that come up are either just passing mentions, from extremely local sources, or, most often, a combination of both. Based on these results, this club does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rorshacma. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:18, 12 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 redirect to Ethan Van Sciver. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberfrog

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

Minor comic character that contains only promotional references. Fails WP:GNG and potentially DePRODed by a sock (first and only edit to contest prod). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too long for a stub and doesn't have the notability for all that text. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have to agree with all of the above MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethan Van Sciver, which has a enough information about the comic to inform a reader. The series received some print attention in the mid 1990s (referenced here), and with the upcoming new material, it could be restored with some better sources in the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a character page, Ethan Van Sciver does not explain the character in any way ~~and does not elaborate on the publication history.~~ I will Edit Cyberfrog to include a short character bio.

EDIT: 'Cyberfrog:Bloodhoney' is the highest grossing crowdfunded comic to date, which makes it of note. There is no shortage of coverage of Cyberfrog's publication and sales (as you have brought to my attention by correcting me about Ethan Van Sciver's bibliography) I have added to the sales information for 'Cyberfrog: Bloodhoney', and will add sales information for the original Cyberfrog publications as I find it. The only thing that is not accurate about the 'sales' figures is that the number of backers is less than the number of units sold (because several perks give you 2 or more copies of the book). There are 3 crowdfunding campaigns for Cyberfrog: Bloodhoney (for variant covers)and all of them are listed in the references of the page but I'll add them more clearly. I don't feel like there's any way to argue that Cyberfrog is not, now more than ever, highly notable. I also fail to see how an indiegogo page, which clearly shows the book people paid for, how many people paid for it and how much money was raised isn't an independent source? User:JerseyDevilYoutube Comment moved and sig added by Argento Surfer

- If you look at the Bibliography section of Van Sciver's page, there's a list of all the Cyberfrog comics he's made, including the publisher, length of run, and publication dates. Your additions, while well-meaning, do not address the concerns raised here. You need to find evidence that Cyberfrog is notable, such as detailed reviews or coverage of its publication and sales. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Highest grossing crowdfunding may be a claim of significance (which only avoids a speedy deletion). Moreover a crowdfunding page is not an independent source, which are required for articles. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how you added sales data for a book that, as of twelve days ago, wasn't published... I also revised the information you added to the article - you said "nearly $1 million", but the sources you provided say "half a million" Argento Surfer (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They raised over half a million dollars for the first issue. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ethan-van-sciver-s-cyberfrog-bloodhoney-comic-book#/ I have added it to the comics Wikiproject notice since they are better suited to find sources for this sort of thing. Dream Focus 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethan Van Sciver for now, with no prejudice against restoring it at a later date if its revival leads to more notability. As it stands now, none of the sources can be considered substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. There is a decent chance that the comic could garner more substantial coverage in the future, however, and a Redirect would allow the article's history to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I would also support a redirect as well. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:11, 26 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. Tone 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visible balance

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. It also came to AfD where the consensus was to delete. Apparently that didn’t happen. It’s still here, still unsourced, and it’s no clearer than before who Cedric Vute is. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable. For example, here's the equivalent article on Britannica. Insofar as we have neglected oddities like "cedric vute", this demonstrates the futility of sticking tags on articles rather than doing the real work of actually improving them. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that there will be much to write about the topic. It's an important concept but WP:NOPAGE might be applicable. ∯WBG^converse 09:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the bare concept is already covered in Balance of payments. Mccapra (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the Balance of payments page has "too long" cleanup tag on it for years. It's 76K and so is too big per WP:SIZE and WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I don’t think that is relevant as I’m not proposing to add any material to that article. It isn’t feasible to remove the brief reference to visible balance of trade in the balance of trade article; my sense is that the brief coverage of the concept of ‘visible balance’ in that article is sufficient and that the article we’re discussing here is redundant. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'balance of trade' article is somewhat misleading, the ARS might get round to correcting it later, if no one else does. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important topic, best covered in its own article as explained by the Colonel. Also, the nom is somewhat inaccurate. The article was sadly deleted following the 2005 AfD, it was then recreated a few months after. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:11, 19 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votescam

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

This is a very strange article about a book that might be notable. However although there may be multiple and probably independent sources, I’m seriously doubtful about their reliability.

For the most part the article appears to summarise the content of the book, but then veers into what seems to be original research with a blow by blow account of phone calls made after the book’s authors were dead.

The sourcing is mostly to a single publication, ‘Hidden History’ which looks to me like a collection of conspiracy theories. I can’t see the Gore Vidal citation or the Miami Herald one, though the date of the MH ref indicates that the piece was written nearly a decade before the book was published. The ‘Grand Theft 2000’ source is only a passing ref.

Turning to the talk page I see a long explanation from another editor about Alex Jones’ interest in the book and how we shouldn’t expect to see many mainstream sources because the MSM are part of the conspiracy ‘and therefore, other Wikipedia editors working for the corrupt groups involved will see fit to suppress knowledge of this book.’

I hope my cheque is in the post. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find reviews in reliable sources (does Hidden Histories actually discuss/review it or just summarise what is in the book?), note: I am not part of the WP/Corporate world conspiracy ...... or am I? (cue ominous music). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither. It devotes one word to the book, "blockbuster", then discusses the brothers and the daughter. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reviews by reliable sources means it doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Disclaimer: I am definitely part of whatever conspiracy is being alleged here. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the reasons above. Also, we need to bury the truth before the normies find out. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is regurgitating conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice, and a single book discussing it is insufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 26 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. As in, not delete. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballerina (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG - listed references are written by people involved in the language creation, or sponsored to be written. Charmk (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This language is developed at (WSO2) and all references comes from them (Primary Resources). This reference is written by Sanjiva Weerawarana (WSO2), one of the Ballerina team (primary resource) and this reference is sponsored by WSO2, and this reference is written by Tyler Jewell (CEO of WSO2), and this reference is a trival mention that doesn't show significant coverage. Also this reference is written by Anjana Fernando (WSO2) Charmk (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does look like there is some mention of this in the tech press: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballerina-a-language-of-integration-of-technology-and-the-arts/. I added a citation to the article itself. Bjornredtail (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Given that Ballerina is effectually a product of WSO2, the content could be shortened and merged into the main company article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.246.253 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Ballerina is a product of WSO2 and does not seem notable enough to have its own article. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are mentions from independent authors as well. I added two citations to the article itself (https://www.theserverside.com/blog/Coffee-Talk-Java-News-Stories-and-Opinions/Ballerina-language-promises-to-improve-app-integration and https://searchmicroservices.techtarget.com/tip/How-does-Ballerina-stack-up-as-a-cloud-native-programming-language) Samallama14 —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 23 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 repurpose article to Antique Wireless Association. Consensus here exists to keep an article on the association, but that the journal itself is not notable enough for a standalone article. I have moved the page over the redirect to Antique Wireless Association, the content will need to be updated to reflect the new location. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 06:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Antique Wireless Association Review

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODed with reason "Numerous incoming wiklinks indicate deletion may be disruptive or controversial". No independent sources identified, number of incoming links has absolutely no bearing on notability, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the incoming wikilinks indicates that the AWA Review is an important source for those researching and recounting the early history of radio and telegraph communications. I am not aware of any other journal that is devoted to this subject. FLAHAM (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above, number of wikilinks is irrelevant here. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is currently no separate page for the Antique Wireless Association (so I'll create a redirect). That society and its journal seem to be regularly cited in histories of radio and other related works. WP:JOURNALCRIT #C2 therefore applies. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any evidence of this getting more than a smattering of citations, which is to be expected and doesn't suffice to meeting JOURNALCRIT#2. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion as no exact number specified. I remain satisfied that WP:JOURNALCRIT #C2 is passed. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To pass a single academic, we usually require several articles with 100 or more citations. Surely a whole journal should meet at least the bar that we set for single academics. There is no exact number specified, as this depends on the field. History is a low-citation density field (but technology is a high-density field), so we'd be happy with fewer citation than we'd require from, say, a candcer journal. Still, the citation rates that I see in GScholar for this particular jouranl are dismal. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ideal case would be having an article on the association and merging there however. But this fails WP:NJOURNALS. Agree with RK that if you wouldn't be notable as a scholar for having being cited X times, then you're not notable as a journal for having been cited X times. I mean, you have book literally called History of Wireless that cites it exactly once. Of all places, if this journal was notable, it'd have been cited them a lot more than once in 577 pages. On google scholar, only 15 papers from the AWA review have been ever been cited. The citation counts are 36, 30, 15, 10, 9, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1. That's an h-index of 5. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as an article on Antique Wireless Association, leaving a redirect. I expect the association does a little more than produce a journal. These specialist societies exist and it is useful to have articles on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Small non-promo stub has value. Slash the external links if you think there's SEO intent, but it deserves a place. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not the strongest of arguments in a discussion like this... --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as an article on Antique Wireless Association, leaving a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 10:44, 19 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. Tone 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post Graduate Government College – 11, Chandigarh

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

No evidence provided of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. University-level institutions are usually considered notable. See WP:NCOLLEGE Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just by nature of being a University I think it meets GNG, but it fails WP:PROMO, unless someone wants to re-write it. They lost me at "always been envisaged as a leading educational institution having its own distinct impress." def not neutral tone. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Panjab University. Deleting information about a constituent college of a major university is always a poor idea. The question is whether there is enough information to justify a standalone page or whether to incorporate the material in the parent university page. In this case a merge would not look out of place in the target and is the best practical solution. Just Chilling (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-awarding institution. As I have explained many times, Indian colleges affiliated to a university are not part of that university or constituents of that university. They are independent institutions affiliated to that university, which is an entirely different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had to go have a read of Higher education in India, but Necrothesp is correct, and I think notability is met. Doesn't appear to be wildly promo. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as independent higher education institution. No reason to think WP:ORG cannot be met. Just Chilling (talk) 10:00, 19 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Urban

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

This page should be deleted because of lack of its relevance to Wikipedia. (I am completing the nomination on behalf of the user editing from IP address 180.177.1.164. I have as yet no opinion myself.) Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC. This person has invented a couple of techniques that have been confirmed by secondary sources. Seems notable to me. William2001^(talk) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but this is way too promotional. Take out all this "popularizing" and "numerous" promo crap and I'd change my vote. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has been modified accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs) 10:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disagree that there is evidence here that he is a notable academic. There has been substantial editing of this page (and others) by Urban himself (or someone close to him; see User:Natriumchloratum) as promotional material. For example, there's little evidence that Urban's techniques "fizzy extraction", "Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry", and "Time-resolved mass spectrometry" are themselves notable, but they are used as evidence on Urban's page of his notability. All any of these entries do is showcase a bunch of citations to Urban's own papers (and those of his colleagues). This whole pack of articles just seems like a giant promotional circle jerk. Being on a handful of editorial boards doesn't make you notable, esp. for mega-journals like Scientific Reports, and I don't see any evidence of him receiving any major awards that would make him notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Five publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. However I removed the routine and self-sourced section on his accomplishments; all academics publish and we can only include that sort of material if we have published secondary sources by other people that go into non-trivial detail about their significance. The keep is weak because what remains of the article is very minimal, and because the evidence of COI editing is problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 22 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Camacho

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

There is no presumption of notability for US appeals court cases, nor is there an SNG for them to help guide our assessment. Therefore we must rely on GNG to determine whether this case is notable enough to require a standalone article.

I can't find any indication that this is an especially notable case. I've checked GScholar, GBooks, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, HeinOnline (via Google since it requires login to search), Questia, and basically found no substantial discussion of this case. The hits are muddied by two other cases, an 11th circuit case from 2001 also called United States v Camacho and a 6th circuit case from 2010 called United States v. Camacho-Arellano. Even adding +2004 to the search didn't turn up anything more substantial.

Given the lack of later references to the case and/or critical commentary about it, I don't think this meets our standard for encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also checked WP:NEVENTS to make sure. William2001^(talk) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an appeals case, I suggest changing the name to reflect exactly that circuit and/or year. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeluvr613, I've noticed you making a significant number of comments on AfD discussions within the last hour, and it seems like you may be going a bit fast and not properly reading the nominations. As I specifically called out in my nomination, appeals court cases are not inherently considered notable, so the simple fact of being an appeals case is not in itself a reason to keep. The name of the article has nothing to do about whether or not it ought to be kept as a topic. Can I gently suggest slowing down and familiarizing yourself with our policies and practices, perhaps making some edits to articles, before continuing to speed-vote on other nominations? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos This is a 250 word stub that checks out on open jurist and is written in neutral tone. There's no advertising, no promotion, no links to someone's website. Obviously it's of importance to someone. If it went on and on then I'd say that you're making an issue more notable than it is. But it's only 250 works, which is smaller than this discussion, it is 100% factual, and written in a neutral tone. So what is the point of removing it? It makes our encyclopedia better. And yes I move fast, if you drink some coffee you might move faster too. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. We rely on independent secondary sources for information, and if there are none (and I'm reasonably confident that there aren't), then the subject isn't notable and we have no business maintaining an article about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find three scholarly mentions of the case, one in Thomas K. Clancy, "2008 Fourth Amendment Symposium-The Fourth Amendment at the International Border", 78 Mississipi Law Journal (2008-2009), another in Yule Kim, Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment (2010), p. 16, and another in "Investigations and Police Practices: Warrantless Searches and Seizures", 40 Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 44 (2011). All of these mentions are fairly brief. The case has also been cited as a precedent in a dozen other court opinions. bd2412 T 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY if and only if all the sources found by BD2412 are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I would say that the sources I found demonstrate notability. Each is a passing mention, and these three, collectively, are the only mentions that I could find for the case. Perhaps a better solution would be to merge this into a broader article on the application of the Fourth Amendment to border searches. bd2412 T 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge to Border search exception might be suitable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that the redirect recommendation by PMCspades above might be smart, but I will try and add some references to the page before we determine one way or the other. Looks notable enough for a mention elsewhere, even if on the brink for its own location. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the references to the page, giving it at least enough oompf for placement on a related topic with a useful redirect, which I endorse maintaining. My failure to secure more coverage makes me unsure it passes WP:GNG, if the mentions are relatively short like mentioned above. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:20, 24 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 speedy delete. Created in violation of a block, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub. ST47 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passivdom

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

Article is unambiguous spam. Can't be nominated for speedy deletion because it already has been in the past. Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I fixed it. Size now = notability and promo is gone. I say keep the pretty logo but I won't cry if you delete that too, I admit its not notably enough to support it and probably violates WP:Copyright. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Comments by blocked user removed by Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 12:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user above removed all but the intro to the article and the infobox, which I undid. If the edit would help make the article worth keeping, I will go ahead and undo my edit. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as paid-for spam, previously deleted as PassivDom. MER-C 11:16, 13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Again not notable to the length it goes on but would be a nice stub. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote Charmk (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I think it's clear this is a valid AFD. I'd say it's a pretty bad sign when a page about a computer language that has no historical importance doesn't bring any one to actually defend it. However, doing the Google News search, CBR Online (link blocked?) has an overview, SDTimes has several small pieces on Crystal updates, InfoWorld has a couple articles that go into some detail on Crystal as part of roundup of new languages. Pragmatic Bookshelf published Programming Crystal (ISBN 9781680502862) by Simon St. Laurent and Ivo Balbaert, neither of whom are developers. It's not far, but it seems over the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crystal is niche, but not an esolang. It's been in active development for a number of years, accumulating 13558 stars on GitHub. There are currently 4605 libraries registered for it. It's significantly more popular than e.g. Elm. It's taught on Exercism.io. It seems to be tracked on the TIOBE index. Describing the authors of Programming Crystal as not being developers appears to be false. As a programmer, it's hard to imagine the criteria by which one could reasonably exclude Crystal from Wikipedia. Tenebrous (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia cares more about works published about the subject by third parties than usually any form of intrinsic notability. I wasn't referring to the authors of Programming Crystal as not being programmers, but rather as not being developers of Crystal, and thus independent of the subject. (In this set of DRs, there were specific mention of that, IIRC, that I was responding to.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what exactly is meant by, "To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history" if this is meant to exclude any form of intrinsic notability? Tenebrous (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know; maybe you should ask him?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is weak regarding citations from reliable sources, but this can be improved. Sufficient notability should be provided by the sources already mentioned by User:Prosfilaes. Crystal was also featured in Linux Magazine ([2]). It is supported by Travis CI ([3]) and CircleCI ([4]) and it's currently prominently featured on the Snapcraft store ([5]) which shows reception in the industry. There are also notable articles by various authors, for example on blogs of Twilio ([6]), Codeship ([7], [8], [9]) and Bruce Perens ([10], [11], [12]). Disclosure: I'm a member of the Crystal developer team. --$traight-$hoota (talk) 11:34, 25 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley G. Ellis

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

This subject is non-notable because they do not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks, very minor passing mentions and primary source quotations from sermons. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:GNG found non-trivial coverage in the Deseret News, The subject is notable as an elder in the Church (LDS) and there is non-trivial coverage of the subject in that realm. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightburst: The source you provided is essentially a primary source, consisting mostly of quotations of a sermon the subject performed. The source provides virtually no biographical information about the subject, and is essentially a rehash of a sermon. Furthermore, multiple reliable sources that provide significant, independent (non-primary) coverage is required to establish notability, not just one source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source has editorial oversight WP:RS. The subject of this article is a prominent figure in LDS. I admitted this subject is borderline which is why I said weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that there is no presumed notability for LDS leaders or prominent figures. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source is actually Church News, an official church publication that is included in Deseret News. You can tell because the byline says Church News. It is not an independent source. It is literally the church's coverage of itself. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka Thank you, Yes I called this subject a weak keep. I have seen this source used for articles previously. I will keep searching. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Church News is an entirely primary source. Per the Church News article, the publication is "owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)". The source cannot be used to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the discussion above, the sourcing appears to be primary, and nothing from WP:RS is present to suggest notability per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with most of the rationale discussed above. One clarification: most/all of the sourcing is not independent of the subject, (and since no other sources exist, this fails WP:BASIC) but I disagree with the assertion that they are primary sources. The authors of, for example, the church news, would not be the subject of the article and therefore this would be a secondary source. However, since it is not an independent source, that is where it falls short. Rollidan (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any independent coverage of this person (although it's possible that there might be some in Brazilian sources). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 26 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneiform (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. I checked all of the references in the article, All of them by Jörgen Brandt (The language author) so they are primary resources. Also I can't find secondary resources for notability. Charmk (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough secondary sources to justify keeping this well written article, but it needs to be shortened. This is an encyclopedia, supposed to contain articles based on notability not the entire sum of knowledge humans have on the subject. 8 pages is silly for this minimally important language. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote SL93 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with above comment. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 19 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 merge to Hayley Orrantia. Consensus is that a standalone article is not justified but that the content should be kept in some form. Just Chilling (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out (EP)

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

No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well written stub about an album written by an unquestionably notable artist. Can't knock the snot panda. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked indefinitely for socking. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well-written - it has just three sentences of basic information and no assertion of notability, the only sources are online record stores, you haven't provided any evidence that it passes WP:NSONG, and the fact the artist is notable does not mean the song is automatically notable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After improving and adding to the article with secondary sources I think it is notable but still needs some improvement. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billiekhalidfan: the only secondary source is the one from Broadway World. Three tweets from Ms. Orrantia's own Twitter account and two links to online record stores do not qualify as WP:RS, nor do they show how the song passes WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (for now.) The re-write cited above has not improved it. And "Broadway World" is not a good secondary source. It is a user submitted site for registered members, per [13] Other sources are press releases and social media. The only thing that might be decent is "Pop Matters," but it is only one. If more are added later then it could merit a stand alone article. But as of now the proper place for this is within the artist's own wikipedia page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: you meant Popculture rather than PopMatters, right? Richard3120 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. A simple brain fade. Thank you for the correction. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hayley Orrantia. Her recording career is only sparsely covered in that article, and a brief summary of this release there is probably all that is justified. I did find a Billboard article about the lead song from ([14]), but there doesn't appear to be much coverage around of this release itself. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hayley Orrantia. The EP fails WP:NALBUM, and after some searching I haven't found any more reliable sources than Michig has. The singer is obviously notable, but it's unlikely that anything better will turn up regarding sources for this EP. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 17 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 no consensus. Opinion is split on notability. Despite two relists consensus has not formed. Just Chilling (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of an Unborn Child

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

Both of the current sources are deadlinks, but when looked up on Wayback Machine were clearly not reliable sources in the first place: one's a blog and the other's a wiki, both self-published sources: here's one and here's the other. I've looked for reliable sources to support this and can, indeed, easily find what is claimed in the article to be the original publication. But that's a PRIMARY source and isn't acceptable, alone, to support the article (and doesn't prove, of course, that it's the original publication). (If I can throw in a bit of original research, I have some doubt about that being the original publication because I seem to recall listening to a vinyl record album of this article being read out loud (not the song) long before 1980, perhaps as early as the late 1960's (but I'm old and my memory may have slipped a cog).) TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an interesting story. An anonymous underground work that went the equivalent of "viral" in the 1980s among the pro-life movement. There is evidence that the item was often discussed within that movement, and also ironically within the pro-choice movement, but these were almost certainly internal discussions that did not make the leap into the mainstream media where reliable and significant coverage could be achieved. The same is true of the song that used the tract. It's the equivalent of something going viral in the blogosphere today, with lots of bloggers throwing it at other bloggers while nobody in the outside world notices. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -, given the time period, the best way to look for reliable sources would a large academic library; these sources probably aren't online; the nominator did not specify looking for offline sources. Also interesting as Coffeeluvr613 stated.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added five refs recovered from archives, hidden comments, and the talk page. One of them is from 1973 by Michele DuVal Aiello, another in from of a graphic novel from 1978 by Jack Thomas Chick. As odd as it is, this is too interesting as a track record of a story to be deleted. Also, given the long history of "usage example" over so many decades indicates some encyclopedic relevance per WP:N. I think, with some research it should be possible to put the fragments together into one coherent story, but that's normal article improvement, not AfD, see also WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The added "refs" are either just republications in various forms of the story or a copyright listing at the copyright office which has unsourced original research added to describe it and which is not itself substantiated by the source. Once again they're PRIMARY sources which are not alone sufficient to support the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Unless you assume bad faith in me or the editor who added that information in the first place the source does provide what is stated in the comment. We can ask the copyright office for confirmation of the facts. They have a copy of the work filed in an archive. Sources don't have to be online to be useful in an article.

Also, at present, that entry is not used to prove anything in the article - it is just a "further reading" which might be helpful to put the pieces of history together in the future.

You are right about primary sources, but primary sources are perfectly fine to support simple facts like the existance of something.

Please note, that I deliberately did not invoke WP:GNG above (because at the time I wrote this I didn't saw secondary sources). My argument, however, was that by the already given sources we could see that the theme is being used over many decades. Something that is not historically / encyclopedically relevant would long have been forgotten after so many years - but it isn't. Instead, at the time of my writing above it could be assumed with almost certainty that secondary sources must exist as well (I just was too busy with other stuff to search for them myself), and that is why I invoked WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST.

And, fast forward to the present, Lightburst meanwhile found plenty of secondary sources, thereby proving my predition above and establishing notability per WP:GNG at the same time.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete above and don't mind if the article is eventually kept, especially since some more sources have been found. However, all three keep votes above use "interesting" as a reason to keep the article, and that's not too far from the "I Like It" argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions. I said it was "interesting" too, but what matters here is notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and is why I was refering to WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. I think, at this stage of sourcing and with some portion of good will we can assume that it will be possible to find even more sources (and given that this once was a hot topic there must have been some (written) debate over the topic in past decades, so secondary sources will probably exist as well somewhere), and this combined with the long-term usage over decades fulfills basic notability although at present WP:GNG might not be formally fulfilled. An alternative would be to merge this stuff into another article, but from the viewpoint of content organization and WP:PAGEDECIDE I think it makes more sense to collect the info related to this topic in a separate article, but that's just my opinion. I don't have strong feelings here...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. The subject meets our general notability guidelines and therefore is worthy of inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With the citation of NEXIST and CONTN, what people are saying is, in effect, "Wow, this is so interesting that sources must exist." As pointed out by Doomslayer520, this is really nothing more than "I Like It". Sources need to be about this, not just this itself repeated again and again. But at this point, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. - TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:SIGCOV The first source I have found is the New York Times: I have determined that the original "Diary of an Unborn Child was read on the floor of the New York State Senate by Republican Senate Majority Leader Earl W Brydges on April 10, 1970. So our article is incorrect. There was also more than passing mention in the Los Angeles Times, and several other passing mentions, including: The New York Times, and Tangzine I will need spend some time adding this information to the article - unless someone wants to help? Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a misunderstanding here. It's not at all about "I like it" or not. I think we should have an article about it because it is historically relevant, and thus of encyclopedic value - and it is not in the interest of our readers to not have an article about it. Also, we certainly don't have a criterium for articles to be not "interesting" in order to be notable.

If it can be reasonably well assumed that sources exist, they must not yet be part of the article. However, this assumption must not be based on "blue sky" wishful thinking. But with a controversial topic such as this one in use over so many decades, we can be almost certain that it was discussed in independent media somewhere, although not necessarily in mainstream media like large newspapers which we could easily find online, so it may take some time to find them, possibly even longer than this AfD lasts.

Update: Lightburst has meanwhile found sources (even in large newspapers), so it is clear that WP:GNG is fulfilled.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but it still does not meet WP:GNG, or WP:SIGCOV.- none of the sources are at all in depth, and quite a few are not RS

Of the current 7 sources, the first 2 are from The New York Times; the first does spend 5 or so lines describing how the senator read out "from what he described as “The Dairy of an Unborn Child.”...but not much more about the actual "diary"..the second is barely even one line "On the floor of the Senate chamber, a Republican senator read from a document that he called the “Diary of an Unborn Child.” The third source is just the lyrics from the watchtower, credited to "anonymous". the 4th source, from the LA Times is the best for some useable information..except its only 5 lines or so as well. 5 is a blog, not WP:RS 6 is a Wiki, not WP:RS 7 is another blog, not WP:RS Its mostly just different variations on lyrics in the external links. I do not see that there is anything to support the likelihood of further, in depth material out there. A senator produced it from places unknown, read it out trying to tug a few heartstrings, but didnt get the effect he wanted (if it had, that might've been a claim of significance). It was passed around fundamentalist sources, then rediscovered by bloggers of the weird and wonderful, but the mainstream never investigated it. Curdle (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversial topic. That the senator was unsuccessful reading this on the floor of the NY Senate is a given: because it was liberal New York. The subject has been in the public domain since 1970, and has been used over and over by both sides of the controversial issue, and even made into a disturbing or campy song. It is a credit to our readers that we have the subject covered here. Lightburst (talk) 12:55, 19 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 no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercube (communication pattern)

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

Not sure about this one - I'm hampered by my lack of understanding of the subject. But checking on the sparse sources, refs #1 & #2 appear to be for general concepts, not the article subject; #3 at least has some apparent relation. The body of the article is a how-to for coding specific algorithms, unsourced. Overall, I'd consider this OR / HOWTO with some hooks to existing terms, but not in a form suitable for an article. - Theoretical computing-savvy editors please assess. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merging to Hypercube internetwork topology, a better article on more or less the same topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, there go. That seems like an excellent redirect target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, from a quick look at the book Grama et al. 2003 actually supports pretty much all of the article, including the algorithms which are explanatory not tutorial; and I dispute that Hypercube internetwork topology is better. This article is the only place in the entire encyclopaedia where people will get even the tiniest clue why "allgather", "allreduce", and other such jargon exist in the literature. A merger may be warranted, but just throwing this away is irresponsible, given how bad the coverage of this subject actually is. Uncle G (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect with a main Article as, Hypercube internetwork topology. The Article and its useful information could save this way.Forest90 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although better clarity is needed, maybe even a rename or change of disambiguator, to clarify the distance from hypercube internetwork topology, of which this is a distinct subset. To say its "on more or less the same topic" is to have missed the point altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 12 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost Group

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

Proposing Foremost Group for deletion because there is no specific news related to Foremost Group. The majority of articles that support this entry only support the Elaine Chao accusations. This belongs on her Wikipedia unless significant support can be found to create content specifically about Foremost Group. I was unable to find anything. And that unsupported line that was recently included is a poor attempt to keep. Where is the History? Financials? Transactions? This entry fails WP:BALASP. And we are talking about Foremost Group, not Elaine Chao.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company is also covered in industry sources, as reflected by additional citations I've added. The fact that the article is not well developed yet is a weak argument for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to keep, it's not clear why "no specific news" is a good enough case for deletion 204.14.239.13 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like a well-researched article. ubiquity (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article merely needs filling out. Many articles start out as stubs and in time are added to. Yes, the company is significant because of the Chao connection, but also as one of the many company articles in Wikipedia. Tmangray (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found and added that now meet the criteria for establishing notability. Striking previous !vote as per WP:HEY. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are either based on company announcements (fails WP:ORGIND) or are mentions-in-passing in relation to the link with a US senator Mitch McConnell and his wife. I also note that none of the "Keep" !voters above have provided any additional references nor provided any reasons based on policy/guidelines. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, I've added quite a few additional references, and more information. Yes, one of the reasons the company is notable is because of its connection to the Secretary of Transportation and her husband, but... how is that notability invalid? The NYT, Pro-Publica, and Forbes articles certainly qualify as "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources", and they are substantially about the company, not just about her. For example, a multiscreen animated infographic illustrating the company's shipping activity is more than a "mention-in-passing". And the suggestion to fold this article into the Elaine Chao article doesn't make sense, because almost none of this article is about her. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is line ball but what I'd say is that if people believe it should stay, content should be added to it. If this is all there is, it should go. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, per WP:INHERITORG; half of the references are about Chao and McConnell, and the other half are routine coverage in trade industry publications with a few primary sources sprinkled in (press releases, the documentcloud fact sheet, Chao's own website, Bloomberg Profile). Fails WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this another round because a majority of the comments were added prior to proper transclusion of the discussion page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 12 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 speedy deleted as blatant spam by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AvantStay

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

Nothing about this article seems to show significance, and it's blatantly promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 04:45, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air on Broadbeach

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

Non-notable building per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - It does have in-depth coverage from sources like the Gold Coast Bulletin and Architecture Australia. [15][16].Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call a few sentences in one article and a short paragraph in another in-depth coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually on closer examination I think you're correct. I strike my !vote. I'm willing to change my mind if there is substantial coverage to be found. Oakshade (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 12 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 redirect to KDE#Mascot. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konqi

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

Vastly excessive details about a software mascot, sourced to wikis and forums. Keeps getting janked out of redirect. My assessment is reverting to redirect to KDE#Mascot and making it stick. - Note: there already was a previous AfD that resulted in redirect, but that was a good time ago and for a very stubby version, not really comparable; so putting this up again. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTH is that band AfD doing in the box? Twinkle be weird, man. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to KDE#Mascot. Not nearly enough in-depth sourcing for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is adequate, there's nothing contentious here, and although KDE is less well known than some products, clearly we've accepted computing mascots as a group worth covering. After all, we have Wikipe-tan, with no coverage anywhere outside the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and you know what stands out in Category:computing mascots? 25 of the 28 entries are section redirects... - I'll let you ponder that one for a bit. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm getting irony whiplash here. First After all, we have Wikipe-tan, with no coverage anywhere outside the project. (which is an actual cherry-picked OSE fallacy), and then trying to apply it to the 89% consensus usage? It must be Friday. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipe-tan page is not in article space so has absolutely no relevance to anything in this, or any other AfD, discussion. SpinningSpark 20:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section redirects to KDE#Mascot is very short written, separate page of Konqi need for more details about this mascot. Konqi's page is also available in other languages. 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.171.172.31 (talk)
Redirect per Onel5969. All the references in the article are sourced to KDE.org. There is nothing independent showing notability to justify a standalone page. SpinningSpark 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename this page to "KDE Mascots"? KDE among mascots have - Konqi, Katie, KDE dragons, Kiki, Kate and Kandalf. Will better if it's will not Konqi's page, it will be the page of all KDE mascots. 03:33 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:31, 5 July 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) 01:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect per nom. The current sources do not support notability -- none of them are independent. Lacking any better sources, the topic simply does not pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Onel5969 - there is no standalone notability here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:46, 17 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 no consensus. Discussion's been open for a month and both sides are well-argued. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Magnet

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Shrav81 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to meet all primary criteria for notability. List of references indicate that the subject matter has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. There may be some sources that may not meet WP:RS but I spotted at least 4 sources that do, so the correct remedy would be to attach tags to fix references, not deletion. Further, the assertion that it has received contributions from a single editor is not a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'd love to see a lot of the promotional language cleaned up Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of sources, several of which are reliable and independent so notability is there. There is definitely quite a bit of promotional/POV content but that is fixable (and as stated above, this isn't a criteria for deletion anyway). Highway 89 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Non-trivial like: Economic Times and Business Today. Nominator did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Passing mention in anotherBusiness Today and Telegraph India. Trout Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the 45 references listed in the article and above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. I wonder if the Keep !voters have read WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and [WP:ORGIND]]) because I do not understand how they reached the conclusion that references exist that meet the criteria as described in WP:NCORP. There's also a lack of detail provided by those who !voted to Keep and some make no references to policies or guidelines (which, of course, they should). Of those Keep !votes that provide reasons and or refer to policies/guidelines, most are quoted and interpreted incorrectly and/or incompletely. For example, some say that there exists coverage which is "significant" - my opinion is that while some of the publishers may be large/successful/significant, this does not mean that the article is significant. In fact, upon close examination, none of the content is significant since most of it is churnalism and/or derived from primary sources. There are various incomplete interpretations of guidelines - for example, a topic is not automatically notable if it receives coverage in "multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources" because it is *also* a *requirement* that the *content* must be independent (and not a series of "interviews" or articles based on interviews/quotations/announcements) as per WP:ORGIND. After an examination of the references, not a single reference includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the references listed by Lightburst above are classic examples of references that fail the criteria for establishing notability. The Economic Times references is classic churnalism complete with photo, history of founders, description of problem, funding history and positive future-looking statement - fails WP:ORGIND and it is clearly not independent content. The Business Today reference is entirely based on information and quotations from the founders and one of the angel investors - again fails WP:ORGIND. Due to the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 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) 09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the sources offered above are likewise passing mentions and/or WP:SPIP; this is not significant coverage. For example, "Different Strokes: Jade's creative crowdsourcing model" is based on the interview with the co-founders. This is not independent, significant coverage and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Australian Sensation" Craven

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

Nominating on behalf of User:2001:8003:5999:6D00:61F3:A3F5:6FBA:F1A2. I am a neutral helper.

"Doesn't pass notability. One story in a local newspaper. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Editors have been adding an unreliable source." Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV of independent, reliable sources to be found, fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NSPORT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something that the IP failed to mention. This is a contested prod, which I added and it was removed. I would have nominated this for deletion at that point but the IP beat me to it. The IP is also right about the unreliable source being added (waprowrestling.weebly.com - a fan site with no oversight), and the article is also subject to a copyright violation that I have just minutes ago removed. Not a notable subject at all and fails every test I can think of. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to only operate at lower tiers of this sport/profession Teraplane (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Masum Reza^📞 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - there's a wall of very poor sourcing and claims. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 18 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 delete. Consensus is that the film fails WP:NFILM. Just Chilling (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Island (2002 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this article fails the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, all references in the page are either irrelevant, or don't works as links. NickBlamp (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A straight-to-video production that doesn't seem to have any reviews fails WP:NFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the reviews I could find were on sites accepted as suitable for the purposes of NFILM Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 19 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.