Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 September	9 September >

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. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conectiva

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

Too few sources availableto sustain a valid neutral article about a barely notable software company. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete It looks more like a Linux distro than a company, but still it's short-lived, some years ago and distinctly lacking evidence of notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 years is not that short, and before this AFD nomination in Special:PermaLink/887650564 the article was more explanatory. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen that deletion, and although it doesn't change my views on the notability of Conectiva, I did consider either reverting it or !voting as a procedural keep here, as no nominator should be blanking so much of an article as part of the process of nominating it.

But still, I don't see this as a notable Linux distro. Many distros existed and that was recorded,[1] but it's not enough to make them notable. Maybe (which your LWN article claims, and I certainly hadn't considered) it's all about who worked for Conectiva, and you could get an article out of that, or at least a section in Mandriva Linux or Mandriva. But otherwise I'm still with the view that it's, "just another Red Hat clone". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mere 90 seconds' search brought me to Jang 2006, pp. 152–153 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJang2006 (help) where the aquisition by Mandrake to form Mandriva is documented, as are things like what this is and some of the design decisions that went into it, all blanked by from the article by the nominator immediately before nomination at AFD. Searching further finds Danesh & Jang 2006, p. 800 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaneshJang2006 (help) which confirms the name of the company producing the software and some of the software's distinguishing features. Clearly zero searching for sources went on by both commenters here so far. I would certainly have expected M. Dingley to have turned up the likes of Bodnar 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBodnar2003 (help). And that's not even looking for stuff in Portuguese. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Jang, Michael H. (2006). Linux Patch Management: Keeping Linux Systems Up to Date. Bruce Perens' Open Source. Prentice Hall Professional. ISBN 9780132366755.
- Danesh, Arman; Jang, Michael (2006). Mastering Linux (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780782152777.
- Bodnar, Ladislav (2003-04-30). "A Look at Conectiva Linux". Linux Weekly News.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It lacks any actual content for which anyone cares. One must apply common sense in these matters. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say the same about its state before this AfD? [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The version you are showing tries to demonstrate the impact of the company on the world around it, but it lacks source. Without source, we will never know the truth of it. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is unclear if Uncle G has explicitly !voted to Keep in this AfD, but his research has revealed two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Both the "Linux Patch Management" book and the lwn.net article provide in-depth information on the company. Topic therefore meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 'research' mentioned above does not discuss how significant the coverage of the company is in detail, but gives the impression it simply confirms the company was mentioned in passing for its business as usual/press release type activity. Nothing presented so far suggests it would pass WP:NORG. PS. I did, in fact, look at the first book source, [3], which mentions the company several times, but in passing. The book does not discuss the company, just talks a bit about the product (code) it produced. If this represents the best sources we have, this is very much a failure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources to meet the "significant coverage" standard described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Edgeweyes (talk) 20:45, 16 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Valley School, Greater Noida

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not major alumni from the school yet and the page doesn't cite any type of the citations to establish the notability. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No adequate sourcing found and no indication of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yeah well with their German Club and their Robotics Club and so on, they are learning more than your kids are, and they are gonna eat your lunch. --Doncram (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that there are many schools in India and there may not be adequate news coverage on each of them. However, quite a few schools in Delhi/NCR region are often reported in newspapers, usually in context of some student activities or if they have some well known students. For example, for this school I found Noida’s Arjun Bhati wins third junior golf world title, 14-year-old Noida golfer Arjun Bhati: My target is to be World No 1 and win an Olympic medal for India. I believe the school is also recognised by CBSE (can be cross checked from the website)--DreamLinker (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

n number of schools have been recognised by CBSE. Here, you are failed to provide rationale on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Alumni of this school have not been participated in olympic yet. Plus, trival mention doesn’t pass WP:GNG. Your argument more seemed like WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me explain my rationale. I think if a school has well known students (not only alumni), that is an indication that there could be more coverage available, particularly in non-English media. Activities of various schools are often reported in the newspaper (particularly the "city" pages) though these resources may not always be available online. I am reluctant to delete articles like this. Another factor I consider (to guess if coverage would be available) is how long the school has been established and the location (rural or urban). In this particular case, I looked at Hindi sources after DBigXray mentioned Navbharat Times and I can find quite a lot of news reports which I think justifies keeping this article. I will add the sources shortly.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioning of CBSE recognition is to ensure the school is genuine. If a school doesn't have recognition from the education board, I am usually reluctant to keep the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the source and rationale put forth by DreamLinker, I would add another coverage of the school in Navbharat Times, (Noida News: ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल में हुआ समारोह का आयोजन - celebration held in greater valley school) It is a senior secondary school and more SIGCOV can be found in Hindi language media. The existing sources confirm this assumption. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more sources in Hindi (apologies as I don't have enough time to properly format these) ^[1]^[2] ^[3],^[4]^[5] ^[6].--DreamLinker (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLinker, Formatted it for you.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Noida News: अनमोल और यशिका बने मिस्टर व मिस ग्रेटर वैली - anmol and yashika made mr. and miss greater valley". Navbharat Times. February 2, 2019.
^ "बच्चों ने फैशन में जलवे दिखाए". livehindustan.com.
^ "कैंब्रिज व ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को मिली शानदार जीत". Dainik Jagran.
^ "क्रिसमस कार्निवाल में स्कूली बच्चों ने की मस्ती". Amar Ujala.
^ "ग्रेटर वैली ने दी एएसएन स्कूल को शिकस्त". jagran.com.
^ "Noida News: मुकुंद ने ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को दिलाई बड़ी जीत - mukund congratulates greater valley school". Navbharat Times. April 17, 2019.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and can be improved.Zinzhanglee (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable run of the mill school, nothing to establish notability and distinguish it from a million other schools; WP:MILL - coverage is run of the mill for school activities, no in-depth coverage of the school itself - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGCRITE which require significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources with an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the school - Epinoia (talk) 23:49, 14 September 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. I'm just going to say that neither side gave compelling, policy-based arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Senstad

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

Just being a coach is not enough. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, invalid reason given for the desired deletion. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is all they seem to be notable for, What else dose the article say about them? They are Norwegian, again this is not a reason for them to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He's a coach of a handball national team, because of this he's notable. Additionally he was coach of an elite club team. --Malo95 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know how much weight IP views carry but, FWIW, this is a clear fail of WP:BIO lacking the substantial multiple coverage in reliable sources required. The first 'Keep', above, is invalid as it gives no justification for keeping and the second 'keep' is just plain wrong. There is nothing in WP:NSPORTS that says that a coach of a handball national team is inherently notable. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a little research about him and after this it's clear for me that he's notable. He played professional handball in Norway and Switzerland, was in the national team and coached professional teams. Furthermore there are news coverage about him in Norway, Poland, Switzerland and Germany.--Malo95 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable for inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinzhanglee (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinzhanglee: Why? Please can you sare your reasons? And not only say no. --Malo95 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My lack of Norwegian and Polish language skills caused me to need computer translations. I did get a lot of ghits, but the translations all seemed to be either typical sports reporting or about his becoming the head coach of the Polish women's national handball team. I don't see anything as a player or coach that would show he meets WP:NSPORT and I would deem the coverage of his becoming Poland's head coach as WP:BLP1E. I might feel differently if he had played or coached at the world championships or Olympics. If someone can provide some other significant coverage I would consider changing my vote. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 11 September 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon Sigma Phi leaks scandal

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

This incident initially occurred Nov 20, 2018, and caused a minor scandal in the Philippines. There was a two-week flurry of outraged press coverage as everyone and their grandmother rushed to comment on the situation, and then - nothing. I searched Philippine news sites like Rappler, PhilStar, Inquirer.net, and ABS-CBN news and came up with basically nothing new since the initial incident. That tells me that there is no lasting effect to this scandal, and that it should not have its own standalone article.

As it stands, the article is half a tabulated list of nasty comments, which is inappropriate since we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. The other half is a list of reactions from people, including individual non-notable fraternity members. We do not exist as a repository for reactions to events.

Full disclosure: I tagged this for merge to Upsilon Sigma Phi in April, but the discussion didn't go anywhere. Having circled back to the article and realizing how limited the coverage really was, I've changed my opinion about the appropriateness of the merge. In my opinion, a significant merge would constitute undue weight relative to the degree of coverage the leaks received. I think the summary already present at the USP article is sufficient coverage without becoming overly focused on a single negative event.

Pinging Naraht and Koakaulana, who commented on the merge request, and DGG, who did some work on the article during its creation in November. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (expand somewhat the entry in the parent article) I agree with the indiscriminate list, at most, descriptions of the type of comments in the newsmedia. If one of the sources consider them Misogynistic, list it that way. Given the level of converage at the time which was National, I think there is more information, if only the reaction from significantly notable Upsilonians which needs to be kept. By comparison, this generated considerably more coverage than the Theta Tau at Syracuse issue, but considerably less than the Trijicon bible quotes. (Also, I'm much happier to see this in this context than a SLA trying to completely delete the issue from Wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete or, possibly restore to my version, [4], and protect or instead of protection ban the user who restored my deletions from the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People in the Philippines can be very passionate, but they are quick to forgive and move on too. This incident had no lasting effect. Filipinos moved on. I think there was a "boys will boys" attitude towards this incident. In addition, the country is patriarchal and very Catholic so the misogny and anti-Muslim part of the controversy never got much long term traction. Wikipedia's Filipino values article indicates: "Women in the Philippines are expected to become caring and nurturing mothers for their own children. Female Filipinos are also expected to lend a hand in household work. They are even anticipated to offer assistance after being married. On the other hand, Filipino men are expected to assume the role of becoming the primary source of income and financial support of his family." In other words, traditional gender roles and a more patriarchal society exists in the Philippines and feminism is less influential than in the West. So the misogny part of the controversy didn't have enough passion about it to be a defining moment in Filipino history/culture. In addition, Wikipedia's article Filipino psychology article indicates: "Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa: Smooth Interpersonal Relationship, or SIR, as coined by Lynch (1961 and 1973). This attitude is primarily guided by conformity with the majority." In other words, there is more of a live and let live culture in the Philippines and less culture war like in the West.Knox490 (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does any of this related to whether the Wikipedia article should be kept or deleted?Naraht (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Wikipedia notability rules for events, although we may want to summarize the quoted statements, rather than quote them directly. The event has had lasting effects on and is part of a pattern of Fraternity behavior and politics in the Philippines; it's geographical impact is arguably large given that UP is the Philippines' National university, with members consistently occupying high government positions; there's clearly both depth of coverage and diversity of coverage based on coverage by interaksyon, abs cbn, the star and the inquirer. - Koakaulana (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 8 September 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 L.G. Balfour Company. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestrium

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

As a trademarked product (steel alloy) - should probably at most be a subsection on L.G. Balfour Company. Setting aside the fact that the second paragraph has some apparenty COPYVIO with https://www.reference.com/beauty-fashion/celestrium-a04f2ef0decf191d . I also don't think this article will ever be more than a stub. Ich (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to L.G. Balfour Company - Epinoia (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - worthwhile content to add (post copyright considerations), but an unneeded fork. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Working Red

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

Completely fails GNG and V, zero RS. Cavalryman (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability – no verifiable hits on Gbooks, no hits at all on Gnews. Appears to be an invention of the American Preservation Dog Registry, a wholly non-notable organisation (no verifiable hits on Gbooks, no hits at all on Gnews). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no method to the madness of all these new registries and fictitious dog breeds popping up on the internet - the here today, gone tomorrow types - most of which are simply marketing and trying to get recognition for new dog types that long established, reputable breed registries refuse to recognize because they do not qualify as purebred. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, not recognized by any reputable registry. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the editors above. William Harristalk 09:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the reasons above. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Monster Pit

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

Completely fails GNG and V, zero RS. Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, and one of the two cited "registries", the website ibcdogs.org, does not claim that it is a registry but a dog breeder. William Harristalk 09:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources qualify as RS - we must not allow WP to be used to promote fictitious breeds. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments recorded here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk)
Delete - Unable to find any decent sources on the subject. Plus, I'm not sure that even were reliable sources available, that the subject is noteworthy enough to merit it's own article. ZBM-2 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Barba

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

It's totally an autobiography. It contains unreliable sources and doesn't have significant coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, we strongly disagree. There are reliable sources in the press (in French) that are cited. In addition, Gerard Barba's partner, Bruce Craig, has a page in Wikipedia, so it should be a reliable source. Together they sold their company to Apax Partners. It was the first major private equity transaction since the fall of Lehman Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardBarba (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GerardBarba, who is "we"? Shared accounts aren't permitted. creffett (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently not notable. He gets about a dozen verifiable hits on Gnews, almost all relating to the possibility that he might have bought a rugby club; he didn't. One verifiable hit on Gbooks relates to the same (non-)event. Blatant COI/autobiography problems, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it's unambiguous advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to be policy compliant. There's a reason that we have rules around COI and it's because the ability of such an editor to write neutrally is going to be compromised even with the best of intentions. Note that this is a delete purely on these grounds, which if it weren't at AfD would have lead me to nominate for speedy deletion, and I have made no assessment of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the supposedly significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't exist. There might be more coverage out there, but it is unlikely. Rockphed (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creating articles on oneself is a total violation of Wikipedia rules which we must act to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Careers and Courses

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

One of the numerous state-government initiatives. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. ∯WBG^converse 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage isn't substantial; what little there is is brief, routine, news coverage of a government announcement. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; if the policy comes to something, there may eventually be substantive sources about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. How is a local cram course notable? Bearian (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Pit Bulldog

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

Article fails GNG and V, none of the sources come close to being RS. Cavalryman (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, and the dog appears to be a marketing opportunity by the organisation promoting it, because these types of dogs were once classified as APBTs but now fall outside the new APBT breed standard, so they classified them as a new "breed". William Harristalk 09:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another case of WP being used to market/promote a fictitious breed. In full agreement with William Harris in that it fails our core content policy, WP:V. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A pitiful attempt to bypass our standards. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehar Baba Charitable Trust

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

Fails WP:NCORP by a few many miles. Nil significant coverage in any reliable source. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I have searched Google, Google scholar, Google books, and news: Mehar Baba Charitable Trust is mentioned in several reliable sources but I found no significant coverage. JimRenge (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. I am unable to find substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 8 September 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. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims in business

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For countries with significant Muslim majorities, this amounts to just a random list of businesspeople and is of no value. There is possibly some interest in having a list of Muslims in business in countries where this is unusual (though even this is doubtful). If such a list were to be created we would need solid evidence that everyone included was in fact a Muslim by self-identification and not just by heritage. For example there’s nothing to support the inclusion of Zaha Hadid in this list. Mccapra (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's next, a list of left-handed civil engineers? Agree with WP:LISTCRUFT. Simon Wright (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad article; with a fifth of the world's population being Muslim there is little keeping this from being an indiscriminate list. This is virtually all business people from many countries and it is not worth listing in this fashion. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough solid sources backing inclusion and no strong evidence this is looked at as a cohesive group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims in entertainment and the media

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Obviously no indication that Islam has an effect on their lives or helped them in their careers in entertainment. Fails list purpose. Störm (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready to take a position yet, but just out of curiosity, which of the 12 reasons for something to fall afoul of WP:LISTCRUFT do you think this falls under? Cause I don't really see this as falling under any of them. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep listcruft is an essay not a policy. While it's fine to include it in your reasoning for nominating an article for deletion, it should not be your sole argument. We have numerous lists of Muslims. See Lists of Muslims. The article is well sourced and is not too long. I see no reason at all for deletion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Please expand your deletion reason for all three of these noms; WP:CRUFT has specifically been called out in the past as an inappropriate deletion rationale, especially alone as the only reason. Nate • (chatter) 16:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment I'm inclined to keep. Unlike some of the other lists of Muslims we've recently considered, this list refers to a more clearly definable set of people and is not indiscriminate in its nature; it also appears that every entry is individually sourced. In my view the section on Literature and Art should be removed as these don't really qualify as entertainment or media, but apart from that I'm waiting for someone to explain clearly what's wrong with the article as it stands. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the reasons above I can’t see what’s wrong with it. Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think WP:LISTCRUFT applies here. Mujinga (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what does being a Muslim have to do with being an entertainer? - if they converted to another religion would they stop being entertainers? - an arbitrary category; WP:INDISCRIMINATE - WP:LISTPEOPLE says "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" (see also WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R) - Epinoia (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia:. Why does being a Muslim have to have something to do with entertainment? How is this list more indiscriminate than List of Hungarian Nobel laureates or List of Catholic clergy scientists? Here again you say that ‘special care must be taken.....’ implying that it hasn’t when it looks to me like it has. Mccapra (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Epinoia (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-The onus is on the nominator and on those supporting deletion to show that notability is not met. ‘What does being a Muslim have to do with being an entertainer?‘ is not a rationale for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, how it is a notable cross categorisation that they are also famous entertainers or media personalities? Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: a false argument since nobody is proposing a list of a billion or more people. There are perhaps some thousands of Muslims in the music and entertainment industry so we’d likely end up with something larger than List of Jewish American entertainers. The issue is whether the people on the list are otherwise notable, and whether their religious views can be reliably sourced. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-American is more of a categorisation as it deals with a minority religious group in that country. In this AfD, the list criteria is a global categorisation. If we listed only the notable ones, the list would be unwieldy and indiscriminate. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already given by User:JDDJS above. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list. This would basically include all entertainers in Muslim countries. We don't have "Jewish entertainers" or "Christian entertainers" either. Following Ajf773, I could imagine a category "Muslim American entertainers" or Muslim Hungarian entertainers, but a worldwide list of Muslim entertainers is not manageable. In addition, for many of these people, being Muslims will hardly affect their performances, so I doubt even the usefulness of national lists. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 16 September 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. Mz7 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim leaders and politicians

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Massive catch-all with no real scope. I think there would be value in having a list of Muslim politicians from countries without a Muslim majority as this is a much smaller and definable set, but sources would be required to show that each individual entry was Muslim by self-identification and not just by heritage. Mccapra (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, there are many countries in the world (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, etc.) where a large majority of politicians and leaders would simply be expected to be Muslim — meaning that in those countries it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while trying to keep their sections manageable by imposing some arbitrary standard beyond being a Muslim politician would violate WP:ARBITRARY. Mccapra has a point that a list of Muslim politicians in non-Muslim majority countries might have more value — but including politicians from countries where most politicians would simply be expected to be Muslim approaches total unmaintainability. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat and the list is indiscriminate. "Leader" is too vague of a term to pinpoint all the entries who fall under this over-extending umbrella. Utopes (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said before, the thousands in Category:Pakistani politicians, Category:Indonesian politicians, etc. could be imported in mass to List of Muslim leaders and politicians, making this even more of an indiscriminate list. Perhaps a well-sourced article appending "outside the Muslim world" could be a legitimate way to do this. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draftify Delete per nom and per Bearcat. Since there is encyclopedic value in a list of Muslim politicians from a specific country (specifically those from non-Muslim majority countries), sending the information to draft space preserves the information currently contained here until country-specific lists are created. --Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in many places this will be a list of all leaders and politicians, some places going back 100s of years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, how it is a notable cross categorisation that they are also famous political figures? Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paško Rakić (politician)

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

Not meeting WP:NPOL. Just being a Deputy Mayor of a city is not enough to demonstrate notability. Available online references about the subject are mostly from local news agencies. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Just being a Deputy Mayor of the twelfth largest city in a country is not enough for a Wikipedia article. A majority of sources are from local news agencies, not from major, national news agencies, as required. LefcentrerightTalk 10:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy mayor of a city in the 30K population range is not a role that guarantees passage of WP:NPOL #2 just because the person exists — it's a role that would require him to be the subject of a lot more nationalized reliable source coverage than this is actually showing. Two of the four footnotes are just photographs of him, not substantive prose content about him, and the two which are actual prose journalism are purely local — but every municipal councillor in every city on earth can always show two pieces of journalism in their local media, so that does not represent enough coverage to hand him a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. GNG, as always, is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into their local newspaper(s) twice for any reason whatsoever": it tests the sources for volume and depth and geographic range and context, not just for n>1. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - fails my standards and based on our recent past practice should be deleted. There's insufficient evidence of general notability. FWIW, I've been to Croatia twice, and have never heard of this town. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS --SalmanZ (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medi Script

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

I recently put this up for PROD but it was contested by another editor. This article has been unsourced since 2007. The only things I can find online are Wikipedia mirrors so unless anyone can find anything to show otherwise my conclusion is it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced, fails GNG. I don't see anything relevant in Scholar/Books. Contesting this should be considered borderline vandalism; I'd have expected better from the otherwise very experienced editor who deprodded it... :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even convinced that this supposed credit system existed. This article might be a hoax. Rockphed (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-quality printing

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

I PRODed this article but another editor disagreed. The reasons for deletion are: “photo-quality printing’ is a descriptive advertising term and not the name of a recognised process. The article is essay-like original research and the talk page shows that there have been major concerns about the reliability of the content since it was written in 2007. It has no sources and while sources could perhaps be found to support individual statements in the article (or to correct them), the topic as a whole is essentially as meaningless as ‘restaurant-quality cooking’ or ‘F1-quality driving.’ Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No citations, but more importantly, no real reason to exist. So it's just printing that is a bit better than other printing? Like Mccapra said, this is an advertising term that isn't grounded in any technical definition and doesn't qualify as encyclopedic content. I was surprised to find the term in a scientific paper, but it's a paper published by Hewlett-Packard Laboratories and even there the term is only used to describe "print images that are comparable, in terms of image quality and image permanence, to the traditional prints produced on silver halide photographic paper".^[1] So it's not a function, it's not a technical process, it's just good printing.PraiseVivec (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. I'm not seeing anything here that can't be covered at existing articles on related topics; and I'm not seeing anything after a quick search suggesting this is a coherent topic distinct from existing articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 15 September 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. It's not unanimou, but there is consensus that the sourcing is not good enough for an article. The text can be userfied and/or restored if more sources appear. I'd like to commend everybody for the scholarly and constructive discussion. Sandstein 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Gambril Nicholson

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

A schoolteacher who wrote some "love" poetry about the boys he taught. The references do not establish notability; all but one either do not mention this person or only do so in passing. The nature of the Love in earnest source is unclear and it could not be followed up on, but it seems it may just be a brief mention. A search for new sources did not turn up "significant coverage in multiple...secondary sources that are reliable" as WP:NBIO requires. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Timothy D'Arch Smith's work on Nicholson appears to be fringe scholarship. D'Arch Smith was a contributor[5] to the International Journal of Greek Love(AfD), published by the paederasty advocate and convicted sex offender Walter H. Breen. According to this article by D.H. Mader (himself a NAMBLA supporter, "boy-love" advocate, and photographer of nude children), Breen first advanced the notion of a "Victorian Paidophilic Poetaster Clique" in 1964 and D'Arch Smith built on the idea in his 1970 work Love in Earnest, coining the term "Uranian poetry" (here using "uranian" not in the Ulrichs sense, but as a stand-in for "paederastic"). Google snippet searches of Love in Earnest yield lines which, devoid of context, appear to be fringe advocacy, like:
- (on child pornography): "Photographs of the orgies held on the ship, a little dulled by time and persistent copying, still circulate in some coteries."
- "If there is a tragedy in Uranian affections, it is not the crime of a man's preventing a boy's development of his natural instincts towards the opposite sex, but the hopelessly onesided adoration of the man for the boy whose young and immature mind cannot intellectually or emotionally ..."
- "It must be confessed, too, that there is a certain freshness in the Uranians' insistence on the superiority of adolescent male beauty ..."
  Another of D'Arch Smith's works on the "Uranians" was published in the notorious pro-pedophilia anthology "The Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People". There, he says:

Extended content

Shot through with simple yearnings – analogy with the negro blues not too far-fetched, both reflecting the discontents of an outcast people – it was permeated with longings for the poets’ lost boyhood; with regrets for the briefness of boyhood’s span; with declarations of the supremacy of Uranian love over other manifestations of affection; its, as it were, rightness.
As might be expected, dissatisfactions outweighed euphoria. Celebrations of untroubled and untrammelled love affairs were few and far between. With admirable stoicism, however, the Uranians were able to console themselves with very little: a boy seen in the street, the sound of a treble voice, glimpses of bare flesh at a bathing place, and on occasions, a kiss. Hard won, of rare occurrence, these to the Uranians were riches indeed.
...The uniqueness of the Uranians’ ideal lay in their single-minded tenet that society should discard the socially acceptable prerogative of parenthood and allow them to take from a boy such love as he has had, in the past, to reserve for his father and mother at a time in his life when he most needs a trusted adult guide outside the confines of home and school.
...the Uranians maintained that the very nature of male-to-male experience of sex, with its unwritten code of impermanence, was not callous or immoral but altogether harmless. It was their bravery in throwing down this challenge which demands our attention.

I've searched for other coverage of Nicholson and found mainly other pedophilia advocacy sources, plus one 1978 article by David Hall in The Book Collector which might possibly represent mainstream scholarship.paywall snippet view. Cheers, gnu 57 08:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's probably notable. Snippet view on Google Books shows a chapter is devoted to Nicholson in The Joy of Bad Verse (1988). Also two pages in Gay Novels of Britain, Ireland and the Commonwealth, 1881-1981: A Reader's Guide and I can view those pages in full on Google Books. These are not mere mentions in passing. Plenty of other hits on ProQuest, Google Books and Google Scholar including discourse on Nicholson's possible influence on Oscar Wilde. Also note the incoming link from The Importance of Being Earnest and several other articles. Haukur (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of Bad Verse appears to be a book making fun of bad poetry. [6] I can't view it, but I don't know if it constitutes significant coverage. As for the Gay Novels... source, it's really two half-pages, and only one paragraph is about Nicholson (the rest is about one of his works). Also, it's published by McFarland, who don't seem too selective in what they publish, considering they have books on things like parapsychology. [7] You mention other hits, but I looked twice for sources significantly covering this person and did not find any. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's about bad verse but being noted for bad verse is still being noted and this does appear to go into a lot of detail and analysis. If you search for 'Nicholson' on the page you linked to you'll see what I mean. Should we see if anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can get us the relevant pages? As for the other source, you're right that a lot of it is on a book by Nicholson but that still counts for our purposes since authors WP:INHERIT notability from their works. Haukur (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to check there, go ahead. WP:INHERIT seems to say the opposite - that notability is not inherited. All I'm seeing so far are sources that are either unreliable or are insignificant coverage. Even if we grant the "bad poetry" source, which is not certain, we need multiple such quality sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:INHERIT somewhat cheekily but note the "do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances" sentence which applies to authors. Anyway, I'll see if anyone can help is with that bad poetry resource. I still think the Gay Novels source is a non-trivial WP:RS as well. Haukur (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the sources that Haukurth points to, there's also some discussion of Nicholson in the introduction to Brian Reade, Sexual Heretics: Male Homosexuality in English Literature from 1850–1900, and several of his poems are anthologised in that work, and several mentions of him in Brian Taylor, "Motives for Guilt-Free Pederasty: Some Literary Considerations" in The Sociological Review. I'm leaning keep. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for all he may have been associated with Breen (which is, ugh, not a good look) I am not convinced that D'Arch Smith is really fringe. Love in Earnest is cited by respectable scholars such as Rictor Norton (in Myth of the Modern Homosexual) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Taylor was allegedly a research director for the Paedophile Information Exchange under a pseudonym. "Motives for Guilt-Free Pederasty" also cites Breen (as "Eglinton"), Ken Plummer, and Mader, and includes lines like "Quite apart from the emotive, and often erroneous use of the terms 'victim' and 'assault' [FOOTNOTE: West notes how 'many of the children who fall victim to sexual offences have laid themselves open to advances by their coy provocative behaviour'...]..." Cheers, gnu 57 14:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sexual Heretics source doesn't include any information about Nicholson, just a few of his poems and a name drop. The Brian Taylor source is junk as gnu57 explained. I think the evidence that the D'Arch Smith source is mostly fringe advocacy is strong, and managing to get cited by Norton doesn't disprove that. For a similar example of someone getting mainstream citations to support some things, but otherwise engaging in fringe advocacy, see Rind et al. controversy. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sexual Heretics has three paragraphs of discussion of Nicholson in the introduction, which is non-trivial. This includes mention of a review of his 1892 book in The Hobby Horse, which would itself count towards notability. Haukur (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crossroads1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can write off Love in Earnest as a source counting towards notability. It was published by a mainstream academic publisher and has more than a hundred citations listed on Google Scholar. Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia calls it an "important study" (p. 908). Of course, we don't have to accept it as a source for whatever non-mainstream views appear in it. Haukur (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long review of Nicholson's book by Charles Edward Sayle: Sayle, C. (October 1892). "A New Poet". The Hobby Horse: 128–138. [8] Haukur (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough significant sources, the article uses primary sources far too much. It clearly violates what encyclopedia articles should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there are a couple of sources that require more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some more sources. Here's Fone, Byrne R. S. 1995. A Road to Stonewall, p. 116: "The silence imposed by homophobia and the need to declare the nature of desire intersect in Nicholson's poem "I Love Him Wisely" (1892) and produce a small but telling masterpiece: I love him wisely if I love him well [14 lines are quoted] "The prudent distance that the speaker keeps between himself and the man he loves is a gulf across which the strong current of sexual desire arcs like an electric charge." Nicholson is also mentioned on pages 94, 95 and 170. On page 287 there's a bibliographic essay which approvingly mentions Love in Earnest: "For the study of nineteenth-century English homoerotic texts, the following should be consulted by any student: Timothy d'Arch Smith's Love in Earnest..." This sort of WP:USEBYOTHERS shows that Love in Earnest cannot be ruled out as a source. Haukur (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think we should keep since there is plenty of coverage. For WP:THREE I'd nominate a) Love in Earnest (1970) by d'Arch Smith which is a book-length study that features Nicholson prominently and has him on the cover.[9] Whatever can be said about d'Arch Smith and however distasteful some of his views may have been, his book is routinely cited, and even praised, by other researchers of gay literature. b) The Joy of Bad Verse (1988) by Parsons which has a ~~long~~ chapter (pp. 282–291) devoted to analyzing Nicholson's works.[10] c) A highly detailed review of Nicholson's first book in The Hobby Horse (1892) by Sayle. [11] Haukur (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now have the chapter by Parsons. It has nine pages of poems and commentary, most of it on Garland and Chaplet. There's some useful information in there (like: "Love in Earnest represents the respectable face of the poet. Although the topic is love, the actual gender of the loved one is left discreetly vague", p. 283) but some of it is tongue-in-cheek commentary that we can't really do anything with. Does anyone else want to take a look? Haukur (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I still maintain that we don't meet GNG or NBIO. A Road to Stonewall doesn't sound like in-depth coverage. D'Arch Smith is still pretty fringey for a lot of stuff, and I think he would profile any 19th century pederast. So I don't think he counts much towards notability. Joy of Bad Verse, while 9 pages long, it sounds to me from your description like a lot of that is occupied by the poems and by humorous commentary, so actual coverage on the man doesn't sound that great. The Hobby Horse may, despite its age, be our best source, but it is still just one book review. A couple other sources were mentioned above, but the problems with those have been pointed out (however, I guess Sexual Heretics does have 3 paragraphs on Nicholson - don't know how I missed that - but that still isn't a lot). At this point, we seem to be at 4 (including myself) in favor of deletion and 2 in favor of keeping. I will ping Genericusername57, Flyer22 Reborn, and Johnpacklambert to make sure they see the latest findings here, so if they wish to change to keep, they can do so. If it stays at 4-2, and given the discussion had, I'm not sure if that would be enough to count as a consensus for deletion for the closer; but I would prefer to see another week of discussion rather than a no consensus close. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating and summing up. Your comment is a model of clarity. To add a bit: You can check A Road to Stonewall for yourself on the Internet Archive – you may need to create an account but that's quick and easy. I'll also happily send you the Joy of Bad Verse chapter if you want, that way you don't have to rely on my summary. The only thing I think I see differently here is the "he would profile any 19th century pederast" part. The thing with notability is that that's how it's created. If an eccentric scholar publishes detailed research on an eccentric topic then, ipso facto, that topic is now more notable than it was before. So it's possible that D'Arch Smith made Nicholson notable. Haukur (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, you may as well send me the chapter. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the excerpt. It seems to me to consist of maybe 4ish paragraphs about Nicholson directly, with the rest being poetry quotations and commentary on those that we can't do much with, at least in terms of supporting article content. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources. Also, because of all the reasons that Crossroads1 mentioned above. Love in Earnest reads like advocacy. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source comment. This whole discussion seems to hinge on the value of Love in Earnest (1970) by D'Arch Smith. The argument that it can be dismissed as a source seems to be that you can find snippets in it that may suggest sympathy with pedophilia. The argument that it is nevertheless a suitable source is that it is used by others. It has some 150 citations on Google Scholar. A search for it there or on Google Books or on Internet Archive reveals that it is cited again and again in mainstream research on gay literature. Sometimes it's even explicitly recommended to readers, as in a book I cited above. If it's good enough for scholars in the field then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. On a more personal note, I really can sympathize with the desire to delete the Nicholson article. To abandon the dispassionate tone for a moment, I find Nicholson to be an unpleasant person to think about and reading his poems is nausea-inducing. But Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't write unpleasant people out of history. The Nicholson article has a number of incoming links, including from The Importance of Being Earnest. We would be serving our readers poorly by deleting it. We should, however, improve it and it should certainly be no hagiography. Haukur (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I still think Love in Earnest (1970) is comparable to Rind et al. 1998. Both sources have use by others for mainstream purposes, and both have questionable content. Such a source would have to be used carefully; and I commented above on why I don't think it contributes to notability. I agree with you that if kept, the article should be improved and hagiography should be avoided. I have found that in the past Wikipedia has been used to promote or whitewash persons like this. But to be clear, I would not have nominated this simply because I don't like this person (though I absolutely do not). If someone is like this and is notable, better to have an article on them, so others may know how these people are - know thy enemy. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:40, 22 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Cursed House in Amityville

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

Non-notable Spanish adaptation of a notable book. Searching for sources for "That Cursed House in Amityville" to prove notability of this adaptation only lead to finding sources for the English adaptation, "The Amityville Horror". The Spanish adaptation within itself is non-notable with no claim to notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Don't let the notability of "The Amityville Horror" add to the discussion; keep it centered on this particular Spanish translation. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG due to complete lack of sources - does not meet WP:NBOOK as it does not appear to have been been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Braden

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

Pure puff piece. Please note that things like this don't add to notability, and that "references" like this one are just spam links. Maybe db-person or db-spam are applicable. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article reads like a resume. And not a terribly impressive one at that. Guy seems to have appeared in a bunch of ads and the occasional TV Show episode and is now a group crossfit coach. The only mention of him I found on a website that's not some sort of model search engine is this one article in Queerty, where, to be fair, he is described as a "top male model".^[2] He also seems to have appeared on the cover of a magazine called iFitness^[3], but I don't know enough about the field to say if that's a big deal or meaningless. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination reason. Abtehas98 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Simon Wright (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bell (businessman)

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

The subject of the article doesn't seem to have done anything notable per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE.

Most notable for being a middle management employee who resigned by sending a company-wide email? Simon Wright (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article isn't written very well, but I think he does qualify per WP:GNG. Mass email antics aside he was notable enough to have several article written about him in the Hollywood Reporter ^[4], to make the list of Most Creative People of 2016 in Fast Company^[5], and to be profiled among the Snap "power players" by Business Insider^[6]. His teenage dot-com-era success story with teenfront is also mentioned in more sources than I could cite here. This page needs improvement, not deletion. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Agar, A. Ufuk; Dispoto, Gary J.; Tastl, Ingeborg; Koh, Kok-Wei; Damera-Venkata, Niranjan (April 2011). "Photo Quality Printing on a Digital Press". Hewlett-Packard Laboratories: 1.
^ Gremore, Graham (19 July 2018). "Two top male models accuse renowned fashion photographer Rick Day of sexual assault". Queerty. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ "Kai Braden". TNGModels. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Jarvey, Natalie (24 August 2017). "Snapchat Content Chief Reveals Key to Creating Shows for Mobile". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ "Nick Bell: VP of content, Snap - For creating and curating the most clickable content on the Internet". Fast Company. 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Carson, Biz; Heath, Alex (7 February 2017). "Meet the power players who help Evan Spiegel run Snap Inc". Business Insider. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

Comment - Fair enough, though my reading of GNG suggests the threshold is rather higher than this, especially for businesspeople. To go through your citations... Hollywood Reporter: non-journalistic interview. Fast Company: a citation handed out like confetti to 100 people every year. Business Insider: an arbitrary list of corporate employees which says manager inside company led team that built feature. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. Simon Wright (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like your mind is made up and you're not going to be convinced regardless of how many sources people will bring here. Yeah, this is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. That's why I argue that having dozens of articles written about him in the media, from Hollywood Reporter, to Vox,^[1] to CNBC^[2] to Variety^[3]^[4] clearly makes him claim WP:GNG. Or maybe you believe that the entire web media is reporting whenever any old middle management guy quits his job. The guy was profiled constantly while he had his position at Snap, his departure was widely publicized, and there's even articles dealing with his new position. I feel like the last link, where he joins a startup incubator gives it away. Since that particularly company is pretty obscure, it's clear that Bell is the main subject of the article and his notability has grown beyond that of his position at Snap.PraiseVivec (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Johnson, Eric (25 October 2018). "Taking a page from YouTube, Snap VP Nick Bell wants to find the next generation of media stars". Vox. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
^ Castillo, Miechelle (12 November 2018). "Snap's vice president of content Nick Bell is leaving the company". CNBC. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
^ Spangler, Todd (12 November 2018). "Nick Bell Out as Snap's Head of Content". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
^ Spangler, Todd (5 March 2019). "Former Snap Content Head Nick Bell Joins Startup Incubator Human Ventures". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Jackson

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

Sources are self-published book, documentary which I couldn't find much info about, and an old BBC article. Her son Luke may barely meet notability guidelines but she doesnt Jerry (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a slam-dunk keep, but there's a fair bit of source material out there if you look hard enough. There's a full profile in The Guardian [12], a profile in the BBC [13], a non-trivial amoung of stuff in the Evening Standard [14], a scholarly review of her book [15], a fair amount of material in a book by an independent author [16], a BBC2 documentary about the family (see previous book source), a film based on said BBC documentary starring Helena Bonham Carter (see previous book source), some commentary on the documentary [17], and at least some mentions in another book which I can't access [18]. Now it's possible this article should be about the family, rather than the mother; but she is the focus of a lot of the stuff, and there's certainly enough to clear GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vanamonde93's post above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vanamonde93.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:07, 15 September 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. Apparent lack of enough independent sources to demonstrate notability. RL0919 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeRose (yoga teacher)

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

Not notable. Approximately two daily lifestyle-section type articles mention him. The article is obvious promotion and the previous AFD notes that it was created by someone affiliated with him. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, searching gives very few links, but there are 12 citations in the Portuguese Wiki article, and they include ITU.com.br which seems to be a serious broadcaster, Folha de S.Paulo which is a national daily newspaper, and Globo.com which is a major web portal in Brazil. All three have given DeRose substantial coverage. I think we should ask a Portuguese speaker or better a Brazilian resident, but this looks close to notability to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one does appear to be a press release. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese -- thanks! Of the 11 refs in the Portuguese Wiki, how many do you think are substantial and in reliable sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional context, a yoga teacher by that references is not notable. Abtehas98 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may well be correct, but I would welcome confirmation from Portuguese speakers on the quality of the sources cited in the Portuguese Wiki (linked above). Abtehas98, does that include you? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having looked through the sources on portugese wiki, the only one I see that is significant and independent is an article in globo [19]. Rockphed (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for checking. We should therefore Delete for lack of sources in any language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify that I used machine translation and threw out about half the sources as unindependent because they were sourced to one of the schools he founded. Rockphed (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be adding Portuguese to your WikiBabel list of userboxen, then... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources to establish GNG. MB 16:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article is promotional crap, but I think there's a case to be made that the DeRose method, at least, has some claim to notability; I'm seeing a number of mentions in reliable sources, and it's possible that there are more substantive mentions that I'm not seeing. It's "delete" on the person, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Valley School

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Vermont (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The school has received lots of coverage due to its demolition and reconstruction process; the governor had some involvement in this. It's the biggest, most comprehensive school in one of Colorado's geographically largest counties.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources I found include editorials about repairing the school, passage of the bond for repairing the school, and a single source that looked at the renovations (albeit paywalled without any indication that there is anything interesting beyond the paywall). I think this school is is WP:MILL. Rockphed (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as Mountain Valley School District. At the end of the day we need to take a view as to whether the Project gains from the deletion of a page and I don't see how deleting an article on a public school is beneficial. However, whatever view is taken on the notability of high schools, school district articles are invariably kept. In this case we have a one school district. Therefore moving the page and rewriting the lead to reflect the district (which I am happy to do) seems the pragmatic way forward. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, run of the mill school; WP:MILL - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORG which require significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting WP:NSCHOOL and not having enough secondary sources. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a little K-12 school in a very rural area, no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above editors it is just a little k-12 school in rural area which doesn't show any sign of notability. Funnygooster (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per sources found. Renaming is a separate matter that can be addressed through the usual processes for moves. RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part Time

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

Fails notability criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (music), or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Sources might be alright for content, but not for advancing notability. Talk page discussion was ignored and two sources added, 1)- a 2014 promo for a future "My Jamey" single and, 2)- The 405 source centers on the "musical project" and what is provided centers on David Loca with virtually nothing on the band (group) to be in line with NBAND. Otr500 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Drmies. The sources he found are significant and look to be independent (if in smaller papers). Rockphed (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above and in the article so passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria#1 (only one criteria needed) thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, the article should be moved to Part Time (band) to disambiguate from other uses of "part time", which is a common term - Epinoia (talk) 00:39, 15 September 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 based on updated sourcing. RL0919 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of film director and actor collaborations

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

Doesn't pass notability WP:LISTN as a stand-alone list. The article has a complete lack of sources, almost no inclusion criteria and is mostly just an indiscriminate collection. Any future attempt at anything similar to this should surely start from new. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep as I find the new form to be sufficient. How do I withdraw this nomination? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, unfortunately, per WP:WDAFD, you can only withdraw it if no one else has supported the deletion proposal. Unless the outstanding delete !votes get struck out by the editors, we'll have to see this through. My assumption is that it will not close as "delete", only "no consensus" as the worst outcome. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, but leaning toward delete. I can name a few notable ones off the top of my head - Alfred Hitchcock and Cary Grant, Preston Sturges and a group of actors he regularly used - but is that enough to overcome the lack of definition of what a "collaboration" is? Probably not. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information can be found in the articles linked to. There is no need to have a lot of pointless references confirming this person worked in that film. This seems like a notable topic. Search for the names of the director and the actor and the word collaborations and you can find reliable sources giving significant coverage of this such as [24] Dream Focus 07:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nothing against someone trying to start this article from new after it's deleted. The current article is simply not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, which completely exaggerates collaborations. Would you agree? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to destroy something that has been worked on for years by many different editors, because you hope a new article more to your liking will be created in its place, is ridiculous. Use the talk page to discuss how you think the article should be changed, and work from there. Dream Focus 07:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to seek discussion on the talk page, but nothing has been forthcoming. I have brought the article to the attention of other editors as well, to seek their advice. I agree that what you describe would be ridiculous, but it is completely not what I hope to happen or am doing. This isn't an article that has really been worked on, it has simply been added to with no care about notability or inclusion criteria.

I have also tried to find reliable sources for the collaborations but there are none for the vast majority. This is clear when searching the supposed collaborations alphabetically, and that's after I've removed entries in the "A" section where there were only three films between the actor and director. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a director works with same actor in several films, does that make it a collaboration or is it something shallower? It could just be that there are a finite number of directors and established actors and they happen to get assigned to the same project again. You work long enough, and reteamings are bound to happen. Or maybe a director likes an actor's performance in their first film together and decides to use them again later. That in itself isn't noteworthy. You'd have to establish something stronger (and sourced), like the director insisting on using a specific actor over and over again. Are Robert Altman and René Auberjonois really indelibly linked together? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm inclined to agree with the nom here, the list is indiscriminate and completely unsourced. There has to be a better way of covering genuinely notable director/actor collaborations, Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio being one such example. PC78 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a subject best fit for an article, where some of the more notable examples can be mentioned.★Trekker (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:Original research. Obviously some director-actor relationships are notable (Scorsese/DeNiro, Woody Allen/Mia Farrow & Diane Keaton) and it is not unusual to discuss such collaborations (see Martin_Scorsese#Frequent_collaborators and Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro) but I see little purpose in this index. It is completely unsourced and while some colloborations are notable these are best served by the categeory at Category:Filmmaking collaborations, where a suitably sourced and notable collaboration can be simply categorised as such. Even if the list was pared down to just include those articles in the category (and thus just including notable collaborations) I am not sure it would satisfy LISTN even then. Collaborations are generally discussed in the context of the careers of those people, not in the context of collaborations. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Category:Filmmaking collaborations for a variety of categories and lists of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much work to source - and a bit overwhelming. However WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but absolutely nuke the unsourced content. This is a notable list topic that has multiple reliable sources:

10 Great Modern Day Actor/Director Collaborations by IndieWire
It Takes Two: The 15 Most Influential Actor-Director Movie Combos of All Time by VH1
The Freshest Actor-Director Collaborations Working Today, Ranked by Tomatometer by Rotten Tomatoes
7 greatest actor-director collaborations in sci-fi movies and TV by Syfy
15 potent Hollywood partnerships by Entertainment Weekly

I get that the article as it is is garbage. I could simply go ahead and wipe this content and start from scratch with the above references. Not sure if I should do that now or after this gets deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the above references and others that I found, I've overhauled the article from this to this. I apologize that the names are not sorted and that some actors are grouped under the director and that some are not, and that the "Films" column does not have titles at this time. If editors can see the potential in this kind of list, being strict about sourcing and inclusion criteria, then we can hammer out the formatting and organizational details. Pinging those who have commented here already: Onetwothreeip, Clarityfiend, Dream Focus, PC78, *Treker, Betty Logan, Andrew Davidson, Lightburst. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A grand improvement I'd say.★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put the table in alpha order but did not add any sort keys yet. A few directors were listed in seperate rows while others had multiple actors on one row. For the directors in multiple rows I merged their listing but I didn't break out the actors into their own separate rows as I wasn't sure what the intent or plan was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current, greatly improved form. As long as the list is maintained to only include sourced examples, and doesn't become the indiscriminate mess it was before, it is a valid list article, as demonstrated by the now-included sources. Kudos to Erik for actually taking the time to put that work in! Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now Erik has worked on it, trimmed the cruft and sourced it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Will try to withdraw later today. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It needs more work but it's certainly an improvement, so I guess we should give this new version the benefit of the doubt. PC78 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Erik and WP:SKCRIT withdrawn nomination. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Noida News: अनमोल और यशिका बने मिस्टर व मिस ग्रेटर वैली - anmol and yashika made mr. and miss greater valley". Navbharat Times. February 2, 2019.

[2] "बच्चों ने फैशन में जलवे दिखाए". livehindustan.com.

[3] "कैंब्रिज व ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को मिली शानदार जीत". Dainik Jagran.

[4] "क्रिसमस कार्निवाल में स्कूली बच्चों ने की मस्ती". Amar Ujala.

[5] "ग्रेटर वैली ने दी एएसएन स्कूल को शिकस्त". jagran.com.

[6] "Noida News: मुकुंद ने ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को दिलाई बड़ी जीत - mukund congratulates greater valley school". Navbharat Times. April 17, 2019.

[7] Agar, A. Ufuk; Dispoto, Gary J.; Tastl, Ingeborg; Koh, Kok-Wei; Damera-Venkata, Niranjan (April 2011). "Photo Quality Printing on a Digital Press". Hewlett-Packard Laboratories: 1.

[8] Gremore, Graham (19 July 2018). "Two top male models accuse renowned fashion photographer Rick Day of sexual assault". Queerty. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[9] "Kai Braden". TNGModels. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[10] Jarvey, Natalie (24 August 2017). "Snapchat Content Chief Reveals Key to Creating Shows for Mobile". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[11] "Nick Bell: VP of content, Snap - For creating and curating the most clickable content on the Internet". Fast Company. 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[12] Carson, Biz; Heath, Alex (7 February 2017). "Meet the power players who help Evan Spiegel run Snap Inc". Business Insider. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[13] Johnson, Eric (25 October 2018). "Taking a page from YouTube, Snap VP Nick Bell wants to find the next generation of media stars". Vox. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[14] Castillo, Miechelle (12 November 2018). "Snap's vice president of content Nick Bell is leaving the company". CNBC. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[15] Spangler, Todd (12 November 2018). "Nick Bell Out as Snap's Head of Content". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[16] Spangler, Todd (5 March 2019). "Former Snap Content Head Nick Bell Joins Startup Incubator Human Ventures". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]