Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 November	3 November >

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. Notability depends on the existence of significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which do not appear to exist in this case. RL0919 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pride

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

Original research on a non-notable person. We have an article on his father but notability is not inherited – also I can't find any sources that mention Thomas Pride having had a son, like this article says: "his existence remained hidden from all official records except for his gravestone". Article doesn't make a credible claim of notability, practically no coverage of this person exists, he is mentioned in passing in this source which lists some immigrants to Maine but there's no way of finding out which Joseph Pride it's talking about. The rest is synthesis and personal family knowledge.

Author declined PROD with the reason: "Family history preserved over 400 years, and passed down. I heard if from my father Byron, who heard if from his Father and Grandfather (Byron Pride). MARKED BY 200 YEARS OF EVERY FIRST BORN NAMED JOSEPH. How much do you want?" – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the editor even know who charles 1st was? He was the only King of England Executed. This is about who his executioner was, and it presents credible evidence in a family history, supported by 200 years of census data, and direct testimony from members of the family who all heard it first hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniePride (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We report what reliable sources have said. Unpublished family legends and census data is original research. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significantly better sources are found and presented here or included in the article. I declined an A7 speedy on this, because there are claims of significance] here, that is statements which if supported by sources would establish or help to establish notability. But in an AfD discussion we look at the sourcing, n it just isn't there. If someone did a WP:HEY type of improvement, my view might well change, but that is what it would take. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaniePride it does no good to be snarky here. I am well aware of who Charles I of England was, and I am confident that Thjarkur is also. The question isn't whether the events of Charles's reign and his execution were historically significant -- they clearly were. The question is if this Joseph Pride was in fact the executioner, or even involved in the execution. We can only go by sources, and a family's oral tradition doesn't amount to a reliable source. If some scholar listens to that tradition, does research into available records, including family records, and publishes a book or a substantial magazine article asserting that Joseph Pride was the executioner, that would be a source that we could cite. But nothing like that is in the article at this point, and two experienced editors say they have looked and been unable to find any such source. If you can find and offer published source, this is the time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Why is a census document considered invalid ?

Also there are multiple mentions of Joseph in the New Model Army, Thomas's Son. I will provide them when I have time. But if I can not cite the US Census it seems quite worthless. If you understand the role of Prides Purge, the executioner choice would almost naturally go to him. This is noteworthy because it is supported by a 200 year tradition of naming the first born Joseph and the second born Henry and then Thomas, and an oral tradition that was passed down with the admonishment that "you will tell your children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniePride (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response A census document is a WP:PRIMARY source, and as such is not invalid, but of only limited use here. We cannot interpret of analyze primary sources --read the link. What we mostly need are secondary sources, sources that put together and analyze primary sources. A census document may be able to tell us that there were people of certain names and ages living in a specific place. It won't tell us how they were related, and it certainly won't tell us how any of them were involved with the execution of Charles I. An oral tradition, I'm afraid, is not published and is not something that our readers can erify unless someone records the tradition and publishes it. That could be done, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. If it were done, then perhaps that publication could be cited, if it seemed to be reliable. If there aren't published secondary sources, there won't be a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Utterly NN - notability is not inherited. His father was highly notable. If the son (the subject) served in New Model Army, even as an officer, it would not be enough to make him notable. The story about an attempt to hang him is not credible: the ire of the Cavaliers fell upon the regicides at the Restoration, but not ordinary soldiers, who continued to be paid by the post-Restoration state for a period. I suspect that the story of what occurred subsequently got exaggerated in the telling. I am not doubting that Joseph became a settler, but so did many people, equally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Del per arguments above and nominator – I agree this article is unsuitable for inclusion. I also think the author may have a potential conflict-of-interest because they are using original research. If someone else wrote the article and found neutral, third-party sources, then I would have chosen "Keep" but by the username, I think it may be best to delete. Awesome Aasim 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be-London

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

Does not appear to be notable, and I cannot find any reliable sources anywhere. The most major contributor to the article is now permanently blocked so it seems unlikely that this page will ever improve. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a clothing retail outlet, originally created for promotional purposes ("this article promotes the African culture and lets people know that there are African clothing services that will meet their needs" [1]). Searches are finding nothing beyond their charity sponsorship announcement, which doesn't provide notability. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable clothing store.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After two re-lists and a WP:HEY by Dmehus, no desire to Delete, and a consensus to Keep which was unchallenged by any Deletes (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Soldiers

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

Non-notable "Club" (which seems to be a euphemism for "gang"?). No inline references, and of the remaining footnotes, most are passing mentions only. There are two sources that are not obvious passing mentions:

[2] - I'm not familiar with what "mapinc.org" is but it appears to be re-publishing an article from a different sources (possibly a copyvio issue) and is otherwise fairly routine coverage - police seized a handgun and a crossbow, and there was a bar fight.
[3] - second does go into more detail on a specific concern related to a member of the "club" having been released from prison in 2006, however, those concerns don't seem to have materialized, as there's no newer reference material available at all.

This article seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is well-documented, reliable and independent press coverage from CBC News, Postmedia-owned newspapers, The Globe and Mail, the Kelowna Daily Courier, and the like. I've added two sources and rewrote much of the second paragraph. Does this article need work? Yes, but AfD is not cleanup. @Bearcat: is involved in a number of noteworthy Canadian-focused articles and may have an opinion, or be able to cite additional WP policies and/or sources that established notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per your first linked source, that is the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. The article was originally published in the Kelowna Daily Courier and, presumably, reprinted with permission from that newspaper. No copyright violation here—none with respect to Wikipedia, which is what we care about. It's common for newspapers to permit non-profits and companies to re-publish their own news articles. Regarding your second linked source, that may be more useful as it provides important and substantive background information on this notable British Columbia gang, but I haven't yet integrated it into the article. I've added a number of sources, all of which establish its notability in a significant way. We're up to 7-10 sources, but more are definitely possible. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing coverage in reliable sources. We have some cleanup issues, however WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:NTEMP is also relevant, since it was once notable it will always be notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, thanks...I tried to do a bunch of cleanup—check out its diff before I made my first edit when this article was nominated. It was incorrectly classified as a club instead of what it is, a street gang. It felt kind of odd that one of my few !keep votes at AfD was for a notorious street gang.

Also, do you think we can safely remove those bulleted Internet Archive references that I converted to fully formed citations? Could probably add those URLs to the applicable citations as "archiveurl," but haven't had the time to do that. Beyond that, we may want to sort the order of the paragraphs so it flows chronologically—save for the Lede. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes i saw right off this was a gang of some notoriety. I thought it odd that there would be a gang in BC. Layout is definitely something that should be improved. And the bulleted refs must be tied to the part of the article they represent, and then converted. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, Yeah, I didn't added those bulleted refs...I'll leave them for now in case someone wants to use those URLs to add in the IA archive URLs and dates. Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, Okay, I put the events in chronological sequence, added the archive-URL and archive-date attributes to the remaining footnotes, moved two of the currently unused bulleted refs to Talk:Independent Soldiers#Bulleted citations removed, then removed all the bare URL bulleted references. Only one URL I couldn't move to the page's Talk page due to nothing being in Internet Archive. I think the article is in a reasonably good shape now. Should I assess it as stub- or start-class, and do you think I would be OK to classify it as mid-importance to the WikiProjects? Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark C. Storella

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

Lack of notability Saff V. (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I once saw an article that simple said X person is a professor of such and such at z university. All it said. It was prod’d as not notable since there was no indication of publications, honors, etc. the prod was removed with the edit summary that as a professor, the subject is inherently notable. Assuming that is true, then a former ambassador who is a dean is notaBle. Cockwomble22 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep senior diplomat, high-ranking positions, dean of branch of major US government teaching institution (170,000 students), Google News search shows multiple entries in WP:RS. Meets WP:BIO, see WP:DIPLOMAT... was WP:BEFORE done here? Goldsztajn (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 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) 20:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design-Altruism-Project

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

Little coverage, mostly in blogs. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small academic/creative research project. Looks interesting, but has not received enough coverage to be notable per our standards. Same goes for the related page David C. Stairs, also at AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple peer reviewed journal articles:

"Atmoterrorism and atmodesign in the 21st century: mediating Flint's water crisis.(Flint, Michigan)"; Dettloff, Dean ; Bernico, Matt; Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Jan, 2017, Vol.13(1), p.156(34)

"BEYOND TREADING WATER: BRINGING WATER JUSTICE TO AMERICA'S URBAN POOR"; Narcisse, Denise; Race, Gender & Class, 2017, Vol.24(1/2), pp.27-64

"Fourth World Theory: The Evolution of . . ."; Dotson, Olon; Buildings, 2014, pp.155-194

~~Appologies for no urls as I am accessing this through an internal database at my university library and not through the internet.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

False. I have all three papers sitting in front of me, downloaded from here, here, and here. In all of them, the word "altruism" appears nowhere but in the bibliographies or, in the first paper, in a footnote to the statement, "As David Stairs observes, such an approach only serves to reinforce a spectacle of unqualified optimism, feigning inclusion all the while only ever addressing and inviting professionals and entrepreneurs." (~~The other papers don't mention Stairs either.~~There's no further mention of Stairs in that paper either, and none in the other two.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A promising Keep was withdrawn at the last minute; also issues with the David C. Stairs BLP; use one last re-list to bottom out likely Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is space on Wikipedia for a Design altruism article. Design for Sustainable Change has a chapter on it, a large part of which is an interview with Stairs. The project could be covered in such an article, but I don't think it works as a standalone. SpinningSpark 22:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a need to distinguish between "deign altruism", which very likely is a notable concept in academic debate, and this Design Altruism Project, which is one designer's blog. The first reference is a poster that does nothing more than list this blog. The DesignObserver piece is a debate between the blog's owner and others about the idea of design altruism but only tangentially about this blog. Those are the two best references. The searches above and my own WP:BEFORE demonstrate that most of the references to this project are by the blog owner. The owner may be notable given the number of those, but notablity is not inherited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Eggishorn. The fact that a media outlet addresses a notable topic does not make the media outlet itself notable. That has not been shown for this one. BD2412 T 19:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7 Up#Cancelled. Consensus that there isn't sufficient sourcing and that the relevant content is already included elsewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DnL

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

Outside of a few sentences, this page is already effectively merged into the 7 Up page. "dnL" just doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this article is over 15 years old, more opportunity for feedback seems appropriate rather than a quick move to soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to redirect to 7 Up#Cancelled, where it is listed, per WP:ATD-R. Agreed that on lacking standalone sourcing, though I saw some promising starts in Google Books. czar 16:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 20:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Rajput

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

A non-notable actress, Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charmboard and IMDB are not establishing notability. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all the credits given to subject are insignificant. The only credit i cant be sure about is from Gudiya Humari Sabhi Pe Bhari. Subject's article is a part of bunch of articles created of that shows cast. UPI is a possibility here. Anyways, the subject fails WP:NACTOR, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Mahashabde

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

Non-notable actor, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill actor and writer. No reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. The actor just had his first television role debut this past August (no time to evaluate sustained coverage). There's no RS and he has had only one role.4meter4 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 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 WP:HEY by RuthVancouver and Thsmi002 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Fairburn

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

It cannot determined what is she notable for, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to Rachel Fairburn from The Guardian newspaper, Time Magazine, The UK telegraph, The Guardian Newspaper and Esquire magazine. RuthVancouver (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the additional references show that she passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the references are sufficient. I typically take a dim view of listicle entries as sources, but the three different best-podcast listings do amount to good coverage, as does the Telegraph article. Cheers, gnu 57 01:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after good work by RuthVancouver and Thsmi002. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 7 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kody O’Neil

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

Fails WP:GNG. While he arguably meets rugby notability guidelines, the league he plays in hasn't been shown to guarantee notability under the GNG guideline (it was just added to a list without discussion.) The three references include the team's website (primary) with the other two being wordpress blogs about U.S. rugby. A fairly extensive WP:BEFORE search brought up no other coverage apart from match reports. Two news searches brought up literally no results. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NRU seems to be satisfied by his play for the Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby, which is on the list of approved fully professional teams over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. I agree the article could use better sourcing, but that isn't a reason for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I know we discussed this at the last AfD, but there's a (very lightly attended so far) discussion here regarding whether this league should even have been on the WP:NRU list to begin with. Furthermore, simply meeting a sports notability criteria doesn't mean you don't still have to pass WP:GNG, and I've thoroughly looked - I don't think there's any way to improve this article through secondary reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer - I understand, and wish there was more participation. However, the fact that the Rugby project has been alerted about this, and still that league remains on the list, makes me feel that it should be included.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody from the project has commented on the league, and the only other user who has commented in a much larger forum agrees with me. I feel like I could easily revert that change per WP:BRD and not get into any sort of edit conflict. Furthermore, an SNG is meaningless if WP:GNG is not satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NRU played for a fully professional team. Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby. according to policy a subject needs to pass either SNG or GNG not both. Sometimes a handful of editors show up and a consensus goes against that policy, however that is why the subject specific guidelines were created. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case - look at any of our WP:NFOOTY-related deletions where the SNG is technically met, but no sources demonstrating GNG can be found, the articles are deleted. The SNG creates a presumption of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.' CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that it meets WP:NRU, however, GNG is the definitive test here; however, no wider desire to Delete; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NRU and added one source. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: as I've noted above and on the league should not have been added to WP:NRU in the first place (see the discussion here), and while I appreciate you adding a source, WP:GNG still isn't satisfied - djcoilrugby.com is one person's blog. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 18 November 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. Setting aside the confirmed sockpuppets and brand new accounts, there is little support for keeping this article and plenty of support for deleting it based on a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survival Edge Technology

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

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

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

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

This is a WP:NEO not in common use. No references outside of Rahul Banerjee's blog for this term and I was unable to find any additional. PROD removed by article author without improvement. Article author acknowledges this term is not in common use yet. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source analysis after the changes mentioned below: #1 is Banerjee himself. #2 and 7 are Medium blogs (not WP:RS). #8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 21 are blog posts (not RS). #5 was written by Banerjee's wife and posted with no editorial control. #3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 do not mention the term at all. shoy (reactions) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new concept. It describes the practical steps that need to be taken to solve the very important problems of water, energy, global warming and agriculture crises that are threatening the very existence of the human race on planet. There is enough work on the ground on this even though not much has yet been written on it by many independent writers. Consequently, this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

I am the creator of this page and I found the objection of a lack of third party references to be correct. So, I have added third party references to the term "Survival Edge Technology". Therefore now the objection raised has been addressed and this page should not be deleted.IKPlusOne (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)IKPlusOne[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original author of the article has added new third party sources in it that cite "survival edge technology" and its implementation and so the objection of this term being a neologism without external third party citations has been addressed and therefore the article is not a fit candidate for deletion anymore. Xavier2209 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

The sources cited appear to include a fair range of publications. Also I'm curious as to what constitutes "common" usage. I see no substantial reason for the page to be deleted - Arjunvenkatraman — Arjunvenkatraman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Arjunvenkatraman (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have been following this page for a long time, and i can concur that lot of third party references have been added and debunk the deletion logic. I recommend removal of the deletion tag.~~ Akshatver (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Akshatver — Akshatver (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This should probably be relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few of the sources provided meet the project's standards. Most are self-published (Medium user pages, Blogspot) or are directly connected to Banerjee, or both. There are better quality sources cited in some cases, like legitimate scholarly journals, but those sources do not mention this topic specifically, only the general background concepts (the essence of a WP:NEO objection). The best quality directly relevant source seems to be India Water Portal. But the cited content there has a disclaimer ("Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of India Water Portal.") that makes me question whether this material went through that site's normal editorial process. I am certain that the people employing this neologism are doing good and important work, but Wikipedia's standards of inclusion are based on different criteria, which I don't think this meets. The closing administrator will likely also want to note that all of the supporters above have very few, if any, contributions outside this topic (or, often, outside this AFD). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ossifrage's assessment, which I did double check, and can confirm that the sources are not reliable. Utopes (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in question has four references to the alleged neologism 'survival edge technology'. Of this only one is by Rahul Banerjee while the three others are by third-party sources. There are a total of seventeen other references for the matter written describing the term and of this only eight are to blog posts or articles by Rahul Banerjee. Thus, overall there are enough third party sources in the article in support of the term and so it cannot be characterised as a neologism. That these third party sources are blog posts that have been self-published do not in anyway mean that their quality is poor. So I would not recommend its deletion at all.BrownMaverick (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — BrownMaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — BrownMaverick (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article is well referenced now as additional third party citations have been added. The disclaimer entered in the India Water Portal article is to protect it from litigation and not because there is no peer review. There is moderation and editing before an article is published in India Water Portal. So there is enough reliable citation in support of the article. Xavier2209 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

Keep I am on Wikipedia since 2016 and have created close to a hundred articles and edited hundreds more as can be easily verified. So I am well versed in the rules. It is in this sequence of my legitimate activity on Wikipedia that I had created this article also. The rule is that there should not be any original writing in Wikipedia and an article should be based on other third party sources. In that sense, this article initially was deficient in that it had fewer third party sources and relied mostly on the writings of Banerjee in his blog. However, once this was pointed out, I have later revised this article and added other third party sources. Even if some of these sources are self published the important thing to see is whether the content of these sources is of good quality or not and whether they support the matter of the article. Thus, the rule that there should not be original write ups and that the matter in the article should be properly supported by third party sources is met and so this article should not be deleted.IKPlusOne (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) IKPlusOne[reply]
Note for the closing administrator. There may have been canvassing when it comes to the participation in this AfD. While I am assuming good faith out of all of the participants, may of the "keep" rationals involve a form of pressure to keep? I refer to such comments along the lines of "Therefore now the objection raised has been addressed and this page should not be deleted", "the article is not a fit candidate for deletion anymore", and "I recommend removal of the deletion tag". In my opinion, the sources added are still not sufficient, but that's not up to me to make the final decision on. Just be aware that there may be an ulterior motive at play? Utopes (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also invite the closing admin to look through the contributions of the accounts !voting on this AFD. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note for the closing administratorThere is no pressure to keep. The words used to favour keeping do not constitute pressure but are opinions expressed without any ulterior motive whatsoever. A genuine effort is being made to broaden the knowledge base. Even if the article does get deleted from Wikipedia it will not affect the further development of the subject in theory and practice will it?!!! Eventually the decision will be taken in accordance with well settled policy. Policy is paramount and not the number of votes so there is no question of canvassing. If the closing administrator feels that the independent sources cited are insufficient or not up to the mark, the article will be deleted and that is that. Where is the need for acrimony? Xavier2209 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy. KeepThere are enough third party references to the subject of the article, some published in reputable websites and others self published. The reliability of these third party sources is being questioned by fellow editors. However, I feel that these sources are of good quality and provenance.Akshatver (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Akshatver — Akshatver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Akshatver (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

Delete Regardless of the importance of addressing climate change, this specific article is promoting a neologism that has no established notability. The sources are a mixed of self-published material, content without editorial oversight, and superfluous items that may pertain to the theme of climate change but do not indicate adoption of this term itself. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to indicate that this neologism is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article about a neologism, sourced primarily to blogs, and obviously created mainly to promote Rahul Banerjee (an article created by the same user who created this article, and like this article added to mainly by the creator and their now blocked socks...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could certainly use improvement, I am surprised that people, who are otherwise quite knowledgeable and experienced, have voted 'Delete' without sufficient interaction with professionals in the field, who would find the term far from new, unknown, or unaccepted. The term 'Survival Edge Technology' refers to use of simple and widely accessible technology as an enabler. While this idea has been quite popular in the field as well as in academia, it is referred to as ′Gandhian Technology′, an obviously ambiguous and somewhat political term. Hence most professionals, at least in India, welcomingly accept and understand this term. - Yashvant.ritesh (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One tiny little problem; the article presents no evidence of the popularity and wide acceptance that you allude to. Please read WP:V. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay on someone's neologism. E Eng 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources which actually mention the term were written by Rahul Banerjee or his wife (anar-kali is his personal blog), or by Medium blog posters with one post apiece, created after the AfD started. Cheers, gnu 57 16:13, 7 November 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. After two re-lists, there was no consensus (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Screen

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

Extremely short disambiguation page that links to the Nintendo DS and Multiple Monitors. Do not see this as a plausible redirect or disambiguation page, especially now that there are numerous dual-screen and foldable devices being available soon, including the Surface Duo/Neo, Huawei Mate X, and Galaxy Fold. Awesome Aasim 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it may be too early to have a disambig page on this topic, but maybe in the near future! Awesome Aasim 04:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To start, disambiguation pages with two entries are just fine. Now, think of it this way. The disambiguation page for Dual Screen refers to two topics that are named for their dual screen. The simple act of having two screens is not enough to warrant an entry on the page. See Computer (disambiguation) for this. The The two entries for this disambiguation are Nintendo DS and Multiple Monitors. For the former entry, the "DS" stands for Dual Screen, as the system's name showcased the introduction of using two screens for a handheld device. The latter entry, working with multiple monitors can be equated to working with dual screens, or Dual Screen. While the Galaxy Fold and similar technology could be added to the list, as they do showcase their multiple screens, the existence of these devices do not minimize the need for a disambiguation page. In the end, they aren't truly synonymous with the term "Dual Screen". Utopes (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Dual screen and Dual Screen to Dual-touchscreen which is almost always the context where "dual" is used._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Zxcvbnm:, how do you feel about my reccomendation? While it's true that "dual screen" can commonly refer to having two touch-screens on smartphones, it is not impossible that "Dual Screen" would refer to the Nintendo DS, or the act of having two computer monitors open. Because of the ability to associate multiple names with a topic, a disambiguation page should exist. If not at Dual Screen, then at Dual Screen (disambiguation). Requesting comment from @4meter4: as well here. Utopes (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both Dual screen and Dual Screen to Dual-touchscreen.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has the potential to be a useful redirect.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: what Zxcvbnm said is a good alternative to deletion as the redirect is plausible, although I agree with the nom's sentiment regarding the uselessness of an outdated DAB. SITH (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet @StraussInTheHouse:, the new phones with multiple screens are not titled as the "Dual Screen Phone". The disambiguation page should only hold entries of articles that are named, or heavily associated with the name "Dual Screen". See Phone (disambiguation). That page is not a list of phone models, but only the articles named "Phone" or imply such. Sure, it's an extreme example, as there are many articles that could come close to this. But for something that is more uncommon, such as "Dual Screen", terms such as "Second screen" and "Dual touch-screen" make perfect sense on the list. Every two-screened piece of technology does not. Utopes (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems consensus that this should be either kept or redirect. Relisting to try and establish firmer consensus about which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make the split equal, but Keep. The distinction between dual-touchscreen technology and having a second screen for a computer is clear, each has an obvious article to point to, and both may be meant by the search term. That makes for a sensible disambiguation page. - An alternative might of course be a couple of hatnotes at the respective targets instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably heading for a no consensus (split of Keep and Redirect); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As mentioned above by User:Zxcvbnm this is almost always used in context to the Nintendo DS, Therefor it should be merged to Nintendo DS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellwood546 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term dual screen has been in use for decades for dual computer monitors – long before game consoles even existed. Diambiguation is therefore required by some means. Furthermore, I would challenge whether Nintendo DS should even be on the page. There is no indication on its page that it is referred to as Dual Screen and the fact that that is what the acronym stands for is irrelevant. It is still only an example of a dual screen game console; even if the name contained the (expanded) term, it would still fail WP:PARTIAL as a partial match. SpinningSpark 20:47, 10 November 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 Asgardia. Going by the arguments that mergeable content exists and that nobody has given a rationale for "not" merging Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardia Independent Research Center

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

Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asgardia.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asgardia. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Asgardia. There is nothing notable about this organization and it is an unlikely search term. Best to merge any remotely appropriate content into Asgardia. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asgardia. The concept is not covered at Asgardia besides a brief mention, yet the content is completely pertinent to the article. I wouldn't include more than a section of content for the Research Center, but merging relevant information to cover more about Asgardia's purpose of creating a micronation on their satellite, and the research done prior to the launch from the research center. It's frankly an important part of their history. Utopes (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There isn't a lot of activity coming to this discussion, so I don't know how many more opinions are going to be shed on this topic. The Asgardia Research Center is a vital part of Asgardia's founding and early history, as it was where the plan to send their satellite into space was polished. Utopes (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asgardia per Utopes. Britishfinance (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The possibility of moving the article to a different title is left to regular move processes. RL0919 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous university

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

Short unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Singapore#Universities per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a disruptive nomination. The fact that an article is short is not a reason to delete it – see WP:IMPERFECT. The claim that this is a personal essay is blatantly false – there are no personal observations or opinions. And the lack of references is not a reason to delete – see WP:NEXIST. Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is expected to look for sources in such a case and they certainly exist – see University Autonomy and the Governance System, for example. The appropriate admin action here is to warn the nominator against making further frivolous nominations without due diligence. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference provided does not support the content of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clue is in what links here This word occurs in the lead definition of many Singpore unis- so in that sense is needed. The same end could be achieved with a footnote on each page --ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Singapore#Universities. The article is an unexpandable substub, mostly unsourced, and the one source it does have technically doesn't verify the sentence it's attached to. Reyk _YO! 14:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Have added sources. Singapore may have 6 universities with autonomy but is by no means the only one. It is not at all obvious what "autonomous university" means exactly (though one may guess). There are around 80 universities in Spanish speaking countries with this in their name (see es:Universidad Autónoma) and if I'm a student of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and I wonder what that is supposed to mean, I most certainly would be WP:ASTONISHED to be sent to an article about Singapore. Possibly also convert into a set-index article like the Spanish article. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an improvement. There may well be room for a decent article on what exactly autonomy means in the university sector, but I think this is still some way from it. The fact that some universities have the word in their title is clearly not enough. Maybe we should look for assistance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities? Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, the significance of the concept is far more important in Spanish-speaking Americas, see es:Autonomía_universitaria. Singapore reflects more a technical-legal difference in status, rather than qualitative difference (ie all universities in Singapore still operate under various degrees of state control due to the nature of Singapore).--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment apologies to Þjarkur, I realise that editor says much the same as I just did, without me acknowledging their earlier comment.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to move this article to the more general title university autonomy. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:49, 4 November 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) 00:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell

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

Non-notable. Only biographical coverage is a book written by his wife and published by his daughter. Does not meet WP:GNG. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If doubt persists, I would suggest moving it into a draft. It would be incubate in draftspace. - Not logged in

Is notable. Meets WP:GNG. Only one book published due to anonymity of activities and political conflict. Book published 20 years after death of author. Biographical information included in notable book which is stored in national library archives and used by historians in other publications and housing development in homeplace named after him. Article mentions section of book where Mitchell was offered Command of the Southern Division of Irish Free State Army by politician and general Michael Collins, which he turned down. - Not logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.31.99.253 (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Main claim to notability seems to be that subject was a member of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence. In relation to this possible NN claim, I would note that there is no available evidence that the subject meets WP:MILPERSON (to the extent that this subject is any more notable than the 15,000 other people who were members of the IRA during the same conflict. "Captain" doesn't meet the rank expectations of WP:MILPERSON). In terms of WP:GNG it seems pretty clear (given that the only material source is the single "family memoir" stle work published by the subject's own immediate relatives) that SIGCOV is not met. That we are otherwise relying on self-published genealogical sources and trivial mentions (to support the content) would seem to reinforce this. In short, mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (The author might also do well to heed the continued and repeated advice about not using Wikipedia as a free web-host for family genealogy content). Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His accomplishments as an IRA captain aren't even specified. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the subject of writing by family, that seems to also have been self published, is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale above, and per that at the Maud Mitchell page, the wife. Both pages seem to have been published by family members... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopes (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was NOT a communist. Story re Michael Collins is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A00:7D00:1DD3:1306:6BB1:CF8A (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was not privileged. Mitchell family were lock keepers on the Grand Canal with a small piece of land. He lived with a large family in a small lock house owned by the Grand Canal Company.

He was a member of Fianna Fáil in later life.

The reference to Tim Quill is irrelevant as they had little in common and rarely if ever met.

He had no accountancy qualification.

He had little interest in religion regarding all all similar and is unlikely to have studied Newman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A00:7D00:1DD3:1306:6BB1:CF8A (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single source in the article is reliable. This page appears to be one of a string of page memorials for someone's family members. Even though he's deceased, the allegations that the subject was the member of a criminal organization or a closeted communist makes me especially wary. There's no evidence that he was at notable for any reason. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity, not a free obit service. The subject, on its face, was an ordinary person. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 November 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) 00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Mitchell

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

Non-notable author. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If doubt persists, I would suggest moving it to draft. Incubate in draftspace. Not logged in.

Notable author. Book stored in national library and used by historians in other works. Housing development named after her in homeplace. Meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.31.99.253 (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main potential claims to notability seem to be WP:MILPERSON (based on subject's membership of IRA and C na mB), WP:AUTHOR (based on subject's book) or WP:GNG (based on general coverage of the subject). In terms of MILPERSON there is no evidence that the subject held a rank or received any award to distinguish them from the tens of thousands of other people who participated in the War of Independence. In terms of NAUTHOR, a single family-memoir publication does not meet the expectations of the guideline. And, in terms of GNG, there just doesn't seem to be enough coverage to establish notability (a single passing mention in a real-estate advertorial piece falls short of SIGCOV by some distance). That we are relying on a user-generated genealogical website to support the content would seem to reinforce the lack of significant coverage to support the content. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (The author might also do well to heed the notes from several editors about not using Wikipedia as a free web-host for content better suited to a family history blog or to ancestry.com. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Giuliolopez and nom. Author fails to meet notability guidelines and sadly only gets a passing mention to the book in a footnote the Peter Hart IRA book. Pilaz (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her book has no reviews that I can find, and she herself hasn't received any media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above rationale. Utopes (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Spleodrach (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single source in the article is reliable. This page appears to be one of a string of memorials for someone's family members. Even though she's deceased, the allegation that the subject was the member of a criminal organization makes me especially wary. There's no evidence that she was at notable for any reason. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity, not a free obit service. The subject, on its face, was an ordinary person. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 November 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.