Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10: Difference between revisions

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday November 11 (Mon) November 10 (Sun) November 9 (Sat) More...

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

< 9 January	11 January >

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 keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that the subject is a notable politician. (non-admin closure) Politrukki (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy

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

Completing malformed nomination on behalf of IP editor, whose rationale is below. The WP:POLITICIAN criteria is applicable here, and suggests that the subject may be notable - but I have concerns about the sources provided, as they do not appear to confirm what the article says. For example, Source 1 (dated in early 2018) seems to talk about the subject as a potential candidate, but is cited as a source to show that they had won their election. Even if the subject is notable, we need to document that notability. A charismatic young politician is not strictly notable, whereas an elected member of parliament is - so we need, at a minimum, to improve the sourcing to show that notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy only a member of parliament and won the election in recent. There's a lot of Bangladeshi notable politician who doesn't have Wikipedia yet and he is very new. Well, this is not a point. the point is sources added to this article are regarding "girls got crush on him", "became web sensation" etc. just because of crush he is not notable for Wikipedia, not for member of parliament either. And if you talk about that he his from Sheikh Wazed family, this is very very far from a notable background, he is just connected to the family in so far. This article can be write again in the future if seems the topic is notable enough. So i'm adding deletion tag and requesting to admins to create a deletion discussion. I don't actually know how to create deletion discussion so putting on it's talk page. Also i'm inviting some admins to look at this Sandstein Scott Burley Just Chilling Thank you. Tasnuva 123.108.246.43 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep An AFD started by an IP who does not seem to be familiar with notability guidelines. Oddly enough is familiar enough to tag some admins. This is a rather mess AFD process. I am going to directly copy my argument from the WP:NPOL,

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

He was elected to the National Parliament of Bangladesh, when or how long is irrelevant. I call for speedy closure based on our policies on notability regarding politicians.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to closer admin.Vinegarymass911 is the creator of the article. And just wants to know, is there any rules that IP addresses can't make edits or request for deletion? and I tagged admins just because you reverted my edit with saying vandalism, so I tagged admin just to look at this talk page and copy to project page. of course Sheikh Tonmoy is handsome and member of parliament and I thought this can't make him notable for Wikipedia. If he is, so this article will survive. there is nothing to worry. And yes, maybe i don't know the full rules of Wikipedia but the thing is you are giving your own opinion on a page's deletion discussion which was created by you!. I also don't know if this goes to deletion discussion policy. You know the best maybe. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.246.43 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that there's a rule against IPs making requests for deletion — what unregistered IPs cannot do is actually create new Wikipedia pages that don't exist yet, which gets in the way of completing a deletion nomination because initiating the deletion discussion requires creating a new page. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This. That's why I went ahead and completed the listing on your behalf. IP editors can post on talk pages, which is why the system allowed you to post your rationale on the AFD talk page, rather than here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He was unquestionably elected to the national parliament and so satisfies WP:NPOL. From here out is simply a matter of article development, not deletion process. I agree that the circumstances of the nomination are... unusual, but we need not even address that to reach the outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tonmoy has been elected and sworn in see article listed above. Article satisfies WP:NPOL. Aurornisxui (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Evidence that Sheikh Tonmoy/Tanmoy was elected to parliament in the 2018 Bangladeshi general election is plentiful.[1][2][3] (enter Bagerhat-2 in List of candidates section). So he is presumed notable according to the first bullet point of WP:POLITICIAN. After the election last month, there are eight relatives of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in parliament. Reliable sources take note of the family connections.[4] WP:SNOW applies. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's been elected to the parliament, then he passes WP:NPOL. (Whether he's handsome or not is irrelevant to our notability criteria, however — lots of unattractive people are notable, and lots of attractive people aren't.) Once the fact that he passes a notability criterion been established, which it has, any further issues with the content or the sourcing are matters for the editing process, not the deletion process. If there are other Bangladeshi parliamentarians who don't have articles yet, then IP is very welcome to help us get those articles in place. Bangladesh is one of those countries where, because we have relatively few active contributors who are very knowledgeable about it, we're lagging on getting its notable politicians in place — but it's not that they're not notable, it's just that we don't have enough editors doing the work. So step up and help us get more of Bangladesh's NPOL-passing MPs into Wikipedia instead of trying to tear down the MPs who are already here, aight? Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 13 January 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 result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avang Music

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

The subject is not notable. Just some trivial mentions in the sources given. I can't find in depth coverage by reliable sources. Mhhossein ^talk 17:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is inline with wiki policy on Record labels and entertainmentMgbo120 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

How is it inline with them? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be a major record label in Iran. Meets NMUSIC #5. Significant length of history, significant roster of artists, appears to have significant cultural impact, and therefore of encyclopedic value. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be enough secondary source coverage to establish notability. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Discussions of the merits of WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH with reference to this AFD are welcome to continue on their respective talkpages. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damarea Crockett

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

As of right now, doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH nor WP:NGRIDIRON. Case of WP:TOOSOON, perhaps. Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "he holds multiple mizzou records and will soon be selected in the upcoming nfl draft". Neither of which is grounds for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 16:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple feature articles show a clear pass of WP:GNG. The article is in serious need of editing, but the subject surpasses notability standards set in the general notability guideline, and that's more than enough.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the coverage seems to be local to the region in which he played, routine, or written by writers which are specifically assigned to cover the team he plays for, which fails WP:NCOLLATH's requirement of national coverage. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON. We can recreate when he passes. SportingFlyer T·C 01:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Kansas City Star, Idaho Statesman, Arkansas Democrat, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch are hardly considered "local" by any measure. These are feature articles, not little snippets of transactions or statistics columns. WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH does not supersede WP:GNG. It is well established that passing GNG is enough even where NCOLLATH is not satisfied. GNG contains no prohibition on the type of regional coverage presented here. Indeed, even local coverage suffices if the sources are multiple, reliable, and independent, and the coverage is significant. Cbl62 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Idaho Statesman is a blurb about recruiting, the player is from Arkansas, and the school he played at is halfway between Kansas City and St. Louis and is covered by both of their media markets. He didn't get any press outside of either his hometown or the two media markets that cover his team, which hardly qualifies as national coverage required by WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH is inclusive and not exclusive -- there is more than one path to notability, and the coverage is more than enough to surpass the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:: There is no mandate for "national coverage". You continue to willfully ignore the plain language of NSPORTS (of which NCOLLATH is a part) which expressly states: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline . . .). Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH #3 requires "national media attention," which clearly in my mind carves out an exception to the WP:GNG for amateur university athletes, since many athletes may pass WP:GNG based on either local coverage or routine coverage (you can probably find a blurb on every single college football player's chosen school choice) but are not actually notable athletes. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong and whatever you think "in my mind" is irrelevant. I participated in the discussion on the adoption of NSPORTS. It was adopted on the clear premise that the guidelines were inclusive only and that any athlete would remain eligible for inclusion under WP:GNG regardless of whether or not NSPORTS was satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why even have prong #3, if the standard for inclusion is routine local amateur sports journalism? SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) these papers are considered regional or national coverage, not local. 2) Feature articles are not "routine" sports scores and statistics. 3) WP:NCOLLATH states clearly at the top of the guideline: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline."--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that "routine local" coverage suffices under WP:GNG. WP:ROUTINE bars things like statistical summaries and passing mentions in game coverage. Feature articles focused on a player are the antithesis of routine coverage. Only a tiny percentage of college athletes receive such feature story coverage in major metropolitan dailies (in this case, in at least three major metropolitan areas [St. Louis, Kansas City, Little Rock] as well as numerous smaller cities). Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer continues to advocate a drastic change to GNG despite the fact that precisely such a change was expressly rejected by the community when recently presented here: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Local sources, again. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the creation of articles based on isolated reports in a single small-town paper, but SportingFlyer's position would reject significant coverage from major metropolitan dailies such as The Kansas City Star and St. Louis Post-Dispatch simply because the source is located "too close" (in one case 125 to the west and in the other a similar distance to the east) to the school where Crockett played football as the lead running back and 1,000-yard-rusher for a Power Five Conference (SEC) team. This view is insupportable (and even dangerous) IMO. We can and should discount the student newspaper (in this case The Maneater) as counting toward GNG. Moreover, if the coverage were solely limited to the Columbia Daily Tribune, we'd have an issue under the "multiple" sources requirement. But here, the coverage is far more widespread and satisfies GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is "widespread" to the three cities which have writers which specifically cover his team and do not comply with WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, NCOLLATH is inclusive only. Passage of GNG is sufficient. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Here is a small sampling of the enormous coverage Crockett has received from at least 10 different media sources: (1) Mizzou RB Damarea Crockett latest to leave early for the NFL, NBC Sports, 1/7/19; (2) Arkansas passed on MU tailback Damarea Crockett. Now he can show them what they missed, The Kansas City Star, 11/20/18; (3) Running back Damarea Crockett leaves Mizzou for NFL draft, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/7/19; (4) Crockett eclipses 1,000 yards, moves past Smith’s record, Columbia Daily Tribune, 11/20/16; (5) His time to launch: Tigers’ Crockett gets 1st chance to play Hogs, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/21/18; (6) Arrest halts 1,062-yard Mizzou freshman from Little Rock, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/22/16; (7) Healthy Crockett looks to return to form for Mizzou, The Examiner, 3/14/18; (8) Mizzou’s Crockett arrested on pot charge, suspended, The Examiner, 11/21/16; (9) Crockett feeling strong, physically and mentally, after lengthy recovery process, Columbia Missourian, 9/13/18; (10) Crockett learns lesson the hard way with suspension, Columbia Daily Tribune, 11/22/16; (11) Damarea Crockett to forgo senior season, declares for NFL Draft, Columbia Daily Tribune, 1/7/19; (12) Missouri's Crockett declares for NFL draft, Jefferson City News Tribune, 1/8/19; (13) Missouri preview: Crockett expected to carry Missouri, The Northwest Arkansas Times, 7/20/17; (14) Unlocking his potential: Crockett makes the most out of SEC opportunity, The Maneater, 9/30/16 (discounted as campus newspaper). Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of which pass WP:NCOLLATH. Why even have a strict SNG if the standard is, "his local papers wrote a feature story on him?" Anyways, I disagree strongly with the keep arguments, but continuing to argue here won't lead anywhere, so I'm going to unwatch this one and let others come to their own conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Cbl62's sources. The idea that feature articles in major metropolitan dailies like the ones in St. Louis and Kansas City are somehow "local coverage" is the kind of lunacy we really shouldn't have to be wasting our time addressing over and over again here. As a matter of fact, there's nothing in Wikipedia's general notability guideline prohibiting the use of so-called "local coverage" to begin with, so that whole argument is doubly wrong from the get-go. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl, Sporting seems to not understand the premise that WP:GNG supercedes NCOLLATH.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Good info, but requires more work.Mgbo120 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment). It's clear that a majority of folks support not deleting Damarea Crockett. I'm leaving this as a general comment after looking through the above discussion, where the point of disagreement looks to be what is "significant". IMO, the attributes of WP:NCOLLATH make sense, and someone with "national media attention" (emphasis added by me) should appear often in national sources such as the the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe. A rather high bar, with Jalen Hurts being an example of someone with such coverage. In general, each starting QB/RB/WR on a team in a Power Five conference appears in standard media reporting during their collegiate playing days, which feels like a rather low bar. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response relying on having coverage from only three specific newspapers to meet the threshold of notability is ridiculous. It also goes against the widely accepted WP:GNG. However, if you want to challenge and re-write that guideline, the place to do it is there and not here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"such as". Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

College football is one of the top four team sports in the USA (on par with NBA, NFL, and MLB, in terms of revenue, attendance, press coverage, fan base, and any other measure), and notability simply cannot and should not be limited to top 25 players like a Jalen Hurts. Some statistics illustrate just how high the bar has already been set. Even ignoring Division II, Division III and NAIA, there are approximately 27,000 players in Division I college football each year (267 teams x 100 players per roster). Having followed college football AfDs carefully for the past 10 years, the current GNG standard effectively precludes roughly 98% of those players from having articles. Only the top 2% get the type of significant coverage that puts them above the GNG bar. The ones who do receive such coverage are generally the skill players (starting QBs, RBs, WRs, DBs), with the coverage skewed even at those positions to players on Power 5 Conference teams. IMO the GNG system we currently have in place is effective and appropriate in limiting our coverage to sufficiently notable players. Cbl62 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That insight helps, thanks. If the observed steady-state behavior is that there is a high bar, that's reassuring. What constitutes "significant" could still be a weakness if someone wanted to manufacture justification for each player on their favorite college team, but if in practice folks are behaving in good faith, leaving well-enough alone is reasonable (“There are no rules until they are broken”). Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I was skeptical about WP:GNG when we had that discussion (was it really 10 years ago? wow!) But the results have proven to be widely accepted and well-grounded. The simple guideline seems to be the best guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snow keep per snowball clause . (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Thurer

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet any of the auto-keep criteria of WP:PROF either. Arguments which led to the keep closure of the AFD fourteen years ago seem uncompelling. SITH (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Myths of Motherhood has been cited over 400 times according to Google Scholar, and was reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and The New York Times, among others. So at a minimum that book is notable. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Like it was said, her book is notable for Wikipedia, but she herself is not. The article could have been repurposed as The Myths of Motherhood but there is no content here to so. Shari fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, nor any special criteria outside of it is met (no impact, no high citation number for PROF, no notable awards for BIO, nothing). Also the fact this article survived in this permastub state for FOURTEEN YEARS (!!) tells enough about her notability and how many articles like these will slip through sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As agreed above, her book Myths of Motherhood has multiple published reviews. But, although less well known, her other book The End of Gender does also have multiple published reviews [5] [6]. So she passes WP:AUTHOR for more than one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David Eppstein's argument. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as reviews of the two books already mentioned, there was plenty of coverage of her work before she published Myths of Motherhood. In 1980, there were articles in many US newspapers and some Canadian ones about 'A hidden bias in children's books' against the disabled or those who looked different (eg the Boston Globe [7]. In 1982, articles about 'Surgery: The Mind Can Be as Affected as the Body, Doctors Discover', eg the Los Angeles Times [8]. Her advice is quoted (7 paras) in 'Mother's Day tips for stepmothers' before she had published Myths of Motherhood (eg the Boston Globe [9]. Some of those sources include info about her age and her husband, if there's a concern about biographical information. So that's over 25 years of coverage of her work - she definitely meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David and WP:GNG per Rebecca. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna DeBono

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, looks to be self-promotion. No news coverage or reliable sources, just IMDB, Instagram and the like. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR, no SIGCOV, does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources for meeting WP:GNG. NavjotSR (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfront (TV series)

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

Another non notable "cancelled before airing" TV series that fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that is not routine (ordered by CBS, cancelled by CBS). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A pity the show never saw the light of day, but as such, practically no focused coverage. The following backstage reference was all I could find to help, and I don't feel that is enough to show WP:GNG has been met. Some of the content might be worth adding to the lead actor's page, as relevant to his career. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kristal, November 17, 2006, Actors to CBS: Save Our 'Waterfront', Backstage

Delete. I don't even recall starting that article... Counterfit (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This one's probably getting deleted, but I may ask for a WP:REFUND to draft for this one because while the current article is unsourced, I am quite sure this got more coverage than is indicated at the article. What I'm not sure is if it got enough coverage to merit an article – I'd have to investigate it, but I don't have time to do that right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'm a fan of vintage TV, as it happens, but Wikipedia is not the place where I'd necessarily look for vintage TV shows. Wikipedia is not about indicriminately listing information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Hatae

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

Subject does not meet WP:ENT, only playing a secondary child character in 11 episodes of Star Trek:Deep Space Nine and the same character in a fan-made film. The references are either startrek.com (with one dedicated interview), Kitchen Nightmares, and a Pepperdine University student newspaper interview of her mother, so the article also fails WP:GNG. MarkH21 (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Supporting MarkH21's take, I didn't find any coverage focused on Hatae, either in-depth or trivial. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No consensus to merge, but definitely no consensus to delete. Merging can be discussed off-AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian Records discography

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of a record label's entire catalog of releases. Categories already exist for stuff like this, for example Category:Sumerian Records singles and Category:Sumerian Records albums. The general standard is that these categories should be populated rather than the entire album/EP back catalog be linked from a discography article. Many of the listed albums are non-notable redlinks. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination is contra WP:NOTDUP without even acknowledging it, let alone giving a compelling reason why that guideline should not apply here. If it is proper to categorize articles on recordings by record label, then it is proper to index the same information on those articles in lists (and the intro to NOTDIR clearly supports that point). The lists also can obviously be annotated in ways that the categories (which have nothing more than naked article links) cannot. Whether the list should or shouldn't contain nonnotable recordings is not relevant to deletion, but rather a matter for ordinary editing and talk page consensus to address. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sumerian Records. Vorbee (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree both postdlf and Vorbee, but I have a third alternative - Merge the content into pages for the respective artists. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Info is very factual and good for the records. Merging with the main page is also good.Mgbo120 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a directory, it is a discography, and entirely different concept than a directory. It contains information that categories are not at all able to duplicate or accommodate. If the Sumerian Records were at all halfway decent, it would also hinder the readability of the page. Because of the main article condition merging wouldn't be horrible, but it would be preferable to keep separate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to United States fiscal cliff#Gang of Eight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gang of Eight (fiscal matters)

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

Covered at Fiscal Cliff#Gang of Eight. Does not justify a fork. I recommend a redirect there. wumbolo ^^^ 10:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Merge: Merge to Fiscal Cliff#Gang of Eight.(WP:MERGEREASON)--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Merge: Merge to Fiscal Cliff#Gang of Eight. It would still keep the text and the list of names is very important for historical purposes. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Merge. The arguments above are sound, the page is currently too small to warrant a split. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Merge. As above. The place for this is United States fiscal cliff. --Lockley (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hamilton

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

Non-notable individual who never won any awards and none of his musical efforts charted. All of his coverage in reliable sources is WP:INHERITED from Matt Dallas' marriage and adopted child with him and is covered on that article. This person simply doesn't have any standalone notability. N Ø 10:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. No one knew who he was until their relationship was made public. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, WP:NOTINHERITED is being misconstrued here. It is not a policy or guideline. It is not a rationale for deletion. It is a type of argument to avoid in arguing to keep an article, according to an essay. So we can set that aside right now. Second, and much more to the point, while Hamilton is frequently mentioned by sources in relation to Matt Dallas, he is also frequently mentioned in his own right, typically in regard to his music or “net worth.” He has an album available on iTunes and Amazon. People actually exist in the real world who like and follow his music, and write about it. Whether Hamilton’s fame took off due to his association with Dallas—in fact, howsoever he or anyone else became famous or known—is entirely beside the point. These other facts I’ve mentioned are the point. It’s a clear keep. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. "People actually exist in the real world who follow his music" is not a rationale for establishing notability. There are scores of artists who have loyal followings but will otherwise remain in obscurity. As indicated by nominator, he has no charting records (all of one EP in six years, plus any schlep can put an album on Amazon nowadays), nor any work with a reputable label, and his only notability comes on the backs of others like Dallas or Fernando Garibay. If Hamilton is "frequently mentioned in his own right," prove it with links to said sources; this goes for anyone who insists on dangling the carrot of sources magically existing when a subject is listed for AfD. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you are capable of performing a general internet search for “Blue Hamilton.” The sources I spoke of were found thusly. And stop hinting at or assuming WP:NOTINHERITED; it is irrelevant here. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that before and come up with zilch, otherwise it'd have been added to the article long ago. I've discerned anyway why you're vehemently contesting the nomination despite the subject's clear lack of notability, and it's no better a reason for keeping the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but I tried Googling him and only got results for Hamilton the musical. It would be helpful if you linked some stand-alone coverage of him from reliable sources.—N Ø 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Individual fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO based on the following.

The sources listed in the article - the first 2 are links to where to buy Blue Hamilton's music, the third is a link to Blue Hamilton's and Matt Dallas' youtube channel, and everything else is short announcements about Matt Dallas and his fiance Blue Hamilton (they got engaged), Matt Dallas and his husband Blue Hamilton (they got married), Matt Dallas and his husband and their son (they adopted). Nothing about Blue Hamilton's life or music. No reliable sources.
I searched Google, Google newspapers, Google books, Google Scholar, also NYT and I did a search "Rolling Stone AND "Blue Hamilton", Billboard AND "Blue Hamilton". Nothing. I find no information about his life or his music. As far as I can find, he and his music have not won any awards. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Needs more work to be encyclopedic. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. The media coverage seems mostly limited to passing mentions and is WP:ROUTINE. b uidhe 05:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn’t matter that “notability is not inherited” isn’t a policy... it’s an act of common sense! Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable musician per nom. --Lockley (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Britton

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)

High achieving early career scientist, but fails WP:PROF, very little to satisfy our notability criteria aside from their social media activity. This is a potential WP:COI article creation, although the deletion nomination is based purely on notability. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Jesswade88 has responded on the article's talk page to the nominator's COI concern. Bakazaka (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her comments there are less than fully candid. Personally I think the notability case is borderline here, but the muddying of the waters by COI editing really doesn't help. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what do you mean by ‘less than fully candid’? I have nothing to do with Ben academically and did not know him well when I started the page- the only part I’ve added since was his involvement in a charity and a recent academic project. Nothing impartial, no ‘puffery’. If someone can point out where my ‘less than candid’ admission of a potential COI impacts the neutrality of this article I’m happy to remove those sections. Or someone who works in nuclear engineering/ microscopy could develop this further...Jesswade88 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is fully explained on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me [10]. ~~I'm not sure if his IOM3 Fellowship is selective/prestigious enough to count for WP:PROF#C3, but it doesn't hurt.~~ In addition, he appears to be something of a quotable source for expert opinion on nuclear energy [11][12][13], maybe not enough so for a slam-dunk pass of WP:PROF#C7, but again, leaning in that direction. While I see the possibility for a COI in principle, the article that we have now does not itself appear problematic to me. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum OK, after reading around more, I'm satisfied that an IOM3 Fellowship counts for WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect another COI edit has recently been made to this biography, going by the username, I have notified the user involved. The article may not seem problematic, but COI editing introduces bias, whether intentional or not. It is a little concerning that even though this AfD makes mention of COI concerns, such editing continues. I assume good faith in that the editors involved are likely inexperienced and unaware of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Notability needs to be established by reference to significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The above keep !vote immediately above this comment does not satisfy this requirement. Polyamorph (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI confirmed by editor here. I undid the edit as I don't feel the particular internal university award is particularly noteworthy.Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of off-wiki discussion of this AfD. This AfD has been mentioned in a non-neutral manner off-wiki. Polyamorph (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are you referring to this tweet by Britton? (One of the most "fun" aspects of having a @Wikipedia article about yourself is watching people discuss whether you are notable or not. But of course, the living subject of the article is not allowed to comment or remind the people bickering that their comments are about a human...) I checked the various social-media venues where I figured such mentions would occur, and I didn't see anything else. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is appropriate to directly link to off-wiki discussion, but since you have I will reply "Yes". Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I have a Conflict of Interest, as I am the subject of the article and as noted by the Tweet TheSandDoctor I can comment here.

Re: WP:PROF#C7 If you want evidence of external comment on nuclear power aspects - I am quoted by World Nuclear News - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Costs-will-dictate-future-of-UK-nuclear,-says-univ. and http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-academics-join-pro-Hinkley-nuclear-project-deba and my comments have been covered in The Engineer https://www.theengineer.co.uk/building-a-future-career-prospects-in-civil-engineering/ , and I have written to the House of Lords https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/63/63.pdf and http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-energy-and-environment-subcommittee/brexit-energy-security/written/69411.html . I have contributed to the House of Lords on Nuclear - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Nuclear-research-technologies/Nuclear-research-technologies-evidence.pdf . I have contributed to 3rd party discussions on Climate Change - https://www.climateworks.org/clean-power-2017-deep-dive/ .

Re: WP:PROF#C7 If you want evidence of my comment on LGBTQ+ issues - I am quoted by Chemistry World (this is the press of the Royal Society of Chemistry) - https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/a-walk-on-the-pride-side/3009251.article

Re: WP:PROF#C7 If you want evidence that I am a notable ECR researcher - I have been quoted by Nature on how to set up a lab - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05655-3 . I have been quoted by C&EN on how to improve communication in a lab https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i29/Slack-ing-helps-chemists-manage.html .

Regarding awards WP:PROF#C2: The Royal Academy of Engineering / Engineer's Trust award of "Young Engineer of the Year" is a Premier Award of the Royal Academy of Engineering - https://www.raeng.org.uk/grants-and-prizes/prizes-and-medals/individual-medals/young-engineer-of-the-year. I was one of 5 awardees and the citation is here: https://www.raeng.org.uk/news/news-releases/2016/june/future-engineering-leaders-win-academy-awards - this is a nationally recognised award, given by the Engineering Equivalent of the Royal Society. This was reported in the Engineering press - e.g. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/royal-academy-honours-engineers-early-career-achievements/

The IOM3 Silver Medal is a Premier Award of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. This is the learned society who recognise and award Chartered Engineering and Chartered Scientist status. The Silver Medal is a premier award to recognise silver medal achievement - https://www.iom3.org/news/2014/apr/15/institute-medals-and-prizes-2014 - and I was awarded this in 2014.

Regarding Fellowship WP:PROF#C2: I am a Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. This is the learned institute for my discipline. It is equivalent to IEEE (which is the example given) and to the Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, and equivalent scholarly institutions in the UK. I am also a Chartered Engineer and Chartered Scientist. For all these, I am one of the youngest in the UK to have these.

Regarding my research fellowship, funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering WP:PROF#C2: This was covered in the engineering press - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/september-2014-online/materials-study-aims-at-improving-nuclear-reactor-performance/ This was covered in the Futurist - https://search.proquest.com/openview/f18d55a8f332425856d380e2c18ac3a0/1?cbl=47758&pq-origsite=gscholar The Imperial College press article was picked up externally - https://www.myscience.org.uk/wire/two_imperial_researchers_announced_as_fellows_of_royal_academy_of_engineering-2014-imperial

Regarding impact WP:PROF#C1: One aspect of my research is the field of electron backscatter diffraction. My work is recognised as world leading in this area. I am current conference chair at the UK RMS EBSD meeting (2019) - https://www.rms.org.uk/discover-engage/event-calendar/ebsd-2019.html. I have been Conference Chair of the 2014 meeting. I was conference session chair at the 2018 International Microscopy Congress - http://imc19.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/IMC19-Program_30052018.pdf. Publication 'metrics' are difficult (see https://sfdora.org/) but within my field, my work is received favourably (e.g. "Crystal Orientations and EBSD - Or Which Way is Up?" has been downloaded >22,000 times (presently it is at 25,283 downloads) as per reporting of the publisher Joe d'Angelo who works for Elsevier (https://twitter.com/jodangeeto/status/1065981372186136576) and for context this article remains one of the most downloaded articles from the journal https://www.journals.elsevier.com/materials-characterization - see Most Downloaded).

BenBritton (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Thank you for your comments. On the subject of publication metrics, Wikipedia does rely upon citation counts (and indices derived from them) more than upon download figures. Of course, citation counts are a coarse indicator with recognized flaws; to mention one issue that has arisen repeatedly, pure mathematicians can have quite low numbers while still being highly influential in their field. Our notability guideline for scholars and academics mitigates (imperfectly) these shortcomings by making publication metrics only one of several paths to notability. To see how the guideline is applied in practice, perusing the archive may be instructive. In fact, this is one aspect of the "sausage factory" that I've never seen addressed very well by the outside press. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (Note conflict of interest, as above - I am the subject of the article which the AfD discusses) On citation metrics vs downloads, my citations can be accessed easily via Google scholar (there is a link in the primary article, and note I have been independent of my supervisor since 2012 when I started at Imperial). On the use of Downloads vs Citations, this is an active area of discussion in the responsible metrics community. I include the downloads in my list as an extra 'flavour' in the portfolio assessment as there is a positive correlation, as per Watson (Journal of Vision, 2009 - https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2193506). There are also "strong correlations between citations and download frequency when absolute values are used" (ref Schloegl and Gorraiz https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asi.21420, as referenced in https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-37-june-2014/downloads-versus-citations-and-the-role-of-publication-language/ - but note that the correlation is weaker when an individual paper is used). In terms of external comment on this use of citations and the assessment of researchers, you can find lots of discussion on this via the #ResponsibleMetrics tag on twitter for instance and https://sfdora.org/ (which is discussed by Wellcome https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/how-we-judge-research-outputs-when-making-funding-decisions and DORA has been signed up to by the UK research councils https://timeshighereducation.com/news/funding-councils-sign-responsible-research-assessment). However, you can see in comments here that citations are being used to assess WP:PROF#C1. BenBritton (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thank you again for your comments. I, for one, ~~welcome our new altmetric overlords~~ would be happy to have a discussion about whether WP:PROF#C1 needs updating, and if so, how to do it. (I can certainly see a case for making changes.) That is a bigger topic than what to do with an individual article, and perhaps Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) would be a more suitable venue for that discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @XOR'easterI'm: I'm up for some of that, give me a shout if the discussion starts. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration of Conflicted Interest: Dr Ben Britton was a research student I supervised in the Oxford Micromechanics Group. I continue to interact and collaborate with him [which I enjoy and gain from].

Being new to Wikipedia I have looked up the conditions for notability for an academic: 'Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable... 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.' Dr Britton was awarded the IoM3's Silver Medal in 2014. The IoM3 is the national learned society for materials science and they declare this one of their premier awards. These are quite easily verifiable points of fact. I would have thought this in itself would be enough. AngusW99 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that AngusW99 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment I have to admit, I am somewhat swayed by the IOM3 fellowship WP:PROF#C3, and citations are high WP:PROF#C1. Polyamorph (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, I don't particularly see sufficient evidence for Significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes NPROF. Generally WPBEFORE assists in these matters. ——SerialNumber54129 08:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good faith nomination, WP:BEFORE was followed. The subject is not clearly notable as you state, hence the Notability tags which were removed by the article creator who has confirmed their COI on this article talk page. This is a borderline pass of WP:NPROF C3 and possibly C1 at best and warrants discussion. More evidence of Significant coverage in reliable sources would be a more helpful argument than simply "clearly passes NPROF" with no justification. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did do a WPBEFORE? Right, thanks for letting us know. ——SerialNumber54129 09:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on balance. The awards are junior awards for promising scientists under 30, and usually we consider junior awards as equivalent to "May become notable someday" especially when the award goes to several people, --but the IOM3 seems more important than most junior awards. . The work is very well cited for the field--citations of 146, 136, 128 .... However, all of these were published as a joint author with his advisor. The question in such cases, is who gets the principal credit--it can be either way. Sometimes a senior person adds a junior who had only a minor role; sometimes the senior person adds his name to the junior only because the work was supported by the senior person's grant--and all sorts of intermediate situations. There is no consistency, even within fields, and it is not easy for outsiders to judge. The paper published when Britton was still as PhD student has the highest citations, but it's the oldest, and papers accumulate citations with time. (As AngusW99 well knows, these are some of the limitations of such counts)

I do point out that being quoted by the press and testifying before a committee is not considered very heavily towards notability here, and especially that arguments by someone for their own notability are looked upon with a great deal of skepticism, and to a lesser degree the same goes by arguments from a colleague. . DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to meets WP:NACADEMIC #1 (high citation rate), #2 (the IOM3 Silver medal), and #3 (Fellowship of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM), which "is an award granted to individuals that the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3), judges to have made “significant contribution or established a record of achievement in the materials, minerals, mining ”.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The original article was a vanity piece created by a conflicted editor, and her continued involvement hasn't helped, but he's on the verge of meeting WP:NACADEMIC (based largely on the IOM3 silver medal: the FIMM is far too low level to count for anything) and will clearly pass it at some point in the next few years. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Price

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

A promotional article that appears to fail GNG. Lots of claims about winning talent searches but no independent sources to back them up. The articles mentioned are mostly dead and a google search turns up little Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find very little coverage. The longest is on a website called Spice4Life [14], which I don't think would be considered a reliable source. Apart from that, I have found two sentences about her crowdfunding her album, in 3 papers about crowdfunding (two by the same person) ([15], [16], [17]), and an article about her winning a Toastmasters competition [18], which turns out to be a blog post on a local website. This does not add up to significant coverage, and she fails WP:GNG (and I can't see anything else she would meet either). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC (not to mention the promotional tone and lack of inline citations, but those could be fixed). MarkH21 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep There is a more than fair amount of sources, even if they are not formatted as footnotes, and therefore meets WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

Could you please let us know which of those amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I just went through the article to check the sources and every one of them was either unavailable or written by Price herself. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be PROMO for a nonnotable performer, fails WP:MUSIC, fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the Verity Price who shows prize Herefords [19].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Day

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

No claim of passing WP:GNG and unsourced in tone. Sheldybett (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not supported by sources.--Binod Basnet (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV, even searching for the celebration in Kolhapur, the only coverage seems to be on the YMCA blog. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable to be on wikipedia right now. AD ^Talk 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good coverage in an English google search. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written article, and an award not even a year old observed by a YMCA, not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no coverage. Appears to be just advertising for the YMCA in Kolhapur - the same author created a (now deleted) POV-riddled article for that particular YMCA that was simply a copyright infringment pasted directly from their website. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. It seems clear that WP:GNG is not met, but the WP:N, which supersedes GNG, states clearly that an article should be kept if WP:SNG is met. A clear majority of arguments posit that SNG (via NMODEL) is met, but NMODEL merely point to entertainers in general. I presume the inference is that modeling for a major brand/show is a "significant role" in a "notable production" As this is not clearly outlined it weakens the argument, hence my no-consensus closure. The article meets WP:V, so not at issue. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kätlin Aas

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

I realize she meets NMODEL but besides an interview (with Interview) in my Before I haven’t actually seen any independent significant coverage at all (for GNG if that wasn’t obvious, which on multiple occasions now I have been told supercedes any respective N-career). Trillfendi (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’ve added and RfC to her talk page during this time Trillfendi (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT#1. Nominator acknowledges that the subject passes an SNG, and "I haven't seen any..." is not actually a statement about the article subject, so no valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Bakazaka (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Look at the article and you clearly see there are no reliable sources. So in my BEFORE I tried to find some that would contribute but “I haven’t really seen any”. It’s that simple. Being friends with other models is not GNG.Trillfendi (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a speedy keep is to save the community's time and attention. You're asking editors to go out and look for more sources for someone who you already acknowledge passes the appropriate SNG. So, let me ask it this way: do you think that making absolutely sure that someone who passes an SNG also passes GNG is so valuable to our readers that it should consume the community's time right now? Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her meeting NMODEL for closing Prada (which I believe is something people could possibly find sources for) is only my opinion. It’s certainly not the threshold for NMODEL such as a cover or contract. I’m operating with the presumption that there may be reliable sources in other languages that another editor may present that I haven’t found.Trillfendi (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're operating with the presumption that she's notable, and there's still no valid rationale for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the beginning she may meet NMODEL. But as the deletion of Julia Dunstall proved: if the model doesn’t meet GNG then NMODEL is irrelevant in that space. You can have your opinions. Trillfendi (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the community's time and attention are limited and valuable, and I reiterate my speedy keep !vote. Bakazaka (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don’t “agree” with my rationale for deletion doesn’t mean it’s not “valid”. Clearly it was proposed for a reason—a reason I stand by. If anyone else wants to vote on this or disagree with me they’re welcome to.Trillfendi (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The consensus at Julia Dunstall was that she failed NMODEL as well as GNG. By contrast, KA seems to pass both NMODEL and GNG, e.g. [20] and multiple other RS one can find doing WP:BEFORE. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are “model wall” interviews where they ask ~10 random “what’s your favorite thing” questions notability? That doesn’t qualify as GNG. I have seen Wikipedia articles outright rejected for that. Can you find an actual article that goes in depth about her like a Vogue? I sure can’t. Vogues frequently profile new or upcoming models even if it’s only a few paragraphs. As it stands now, “she has modeled for so-and-so (with no reliable sources to back it up), she’s friends with so-and-so (irrelevant) and an obsolete link that she’s not included in doesn’t hold up.Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source just using a picture as part of a slideshow of 30 other models is not notability. “Kätlin Aas (2009)” is not notability. Directories are not reliable sources for notability (some administrators don’t even consider models.com a reliable source at all but I disagree with them there). If she had significant coverage, then those things would only serve as back up.Trillfendi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what we need is independent, 3rd party, indepth secondary coverage. Interviews and pictures in slide shows are not this. Even if they were that is no argument for speedy keep at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You get it. It’s truly disarming that some here think models.com / slides / directories makes all policy regarding general notability and secondary coverage thrown out of the window for this “special occasion”. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to pass both NMODEL and GNG. Person passes an SNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Please point out to me where you see any GNG because of the sources in the article from a YouTube video to directories to a broken link at “Lexposure.net”, I see none. Per Johnpacklambert, there’s really gotta be in-depth secondary coverage for her.Trillfendi (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG guidelines. Sheldybett (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheldybett: Will somebody—anybody—show me where they see GNG here? I.e. significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this on the basis of GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but she does not need to pass the GNG since NMODEL is applied to fashion models anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheldybett: Basically the reason I’d nominated this was because of a previous of a model who met NMODEL but not GNG (only tangible reference was a Teen Vogue interview from over a decade ago). The same situation is happening here. No independent, reliable sources that go in depth on her career. All that’s here is one sentence of a smattering of jobs. It’s just not it. Trillfendi (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMODEL. "I haven’t actually seen any independent significant coverage" isn't grounds for deletion. ExRat (talk)

@ExRat: Because significant coverage clearly doesn’t exist for her, as evidence by no one else even finding any, including my Before. That’s why I proposed deletion because of GNG, NOT because of NMODEL which I saw as a similar case to Julia Dunstall. Clearly I already addressed that in the nomination. but if people can’t see that I’m definitely not above renominating in the future if no improvements are even made. And doing a Prada show isn’t even the standard of NMODEL.Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of her accomplishments are listed at New York magazine - and those are merely up to 2012. I've Googled her and came up with a few references. Sure there are more, but I am not that invested, TBH. Maybe I'll look again tomorrow. ExRat (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat: You do realize that NYMag’s model profile is simply a directory (a defunct one at that, they haven’t updated anybody’s profile since around 2012) that doesn’t establish notability for any model, right? Trillfendi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Never said that the site I gave establishes her notability. Merely stated there is a list of accomplishments there that could possibly be sourced. Still a "Keep" for me. ExRat (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC

@ExRat: ... There are no reliable sources for it. That’s why the article is being proposed for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has appeared on the cover of Ukrainian Vogue and Vogue Netherlands, as well as in editions of Italian, Mexican, and Chinese Vogue. That, I am quite sure meets WP:NMODEL. There are sources for some of this stuff out there. ExRat (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“gofugyourself”.com definitely isn’t one (whoever put that should be ashamed). All folks can seem to muster up are the agencies she’s contracted to (y’all know better) or models.com. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many Vogue covers are we up to now? Three? Four? ExRat (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to FMD, she has those Vogue covers (brava), but if only people could actual sources for them that aren’t directories or primary sources. Ay, there’s the rub. And the Wikipedia articles for those editions, sadly, are unsourced and rely on original research primarily by a redlink user named Arjiansumanti. In my experience, some editors believe certain lower circulation markets of fashion magazines are non-notable while others think even far flung locations like Vietnam count.Trillfendi (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"doing a Prada show isn’t even the standard of NMODEL"? WP:NMODEL states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The Vogue article 'Why Prada’s Model Casting Matters' (referenced in the article) says "Prada remains the ultimate “get.” The prestige and visibility that come from being on the Prada runway is incomparable—whether you’re a newcomer having your first big moment or a star returning after a lengthy hiatus. As a result, Prada’s castings have become the barometer by which other shows are judged, as well as an arbiter of industry beauty norms." And it goes on, "Prada consistently launches careers, and though not every model selected for a Prada exclusive contract goes on to greatness, the brand’s success rate is enviable. Those chosen to open the show, walk in it exclusively, or debut via a Prada campaign are essentially winners of modeling’s golden ticket". That, to me, says that opening a Prada show is significant, and the other brands she has modelled for also have notable shows. And you yourself said that she meets WP:NMODEL in your nomination.

Not being able to see the article about Julia Dunstall, I can't see what she did - but the Delete votes all seemed to assume that WP:NMODEL requires SIGCOV. However, WP:ENT does not specify coverage, unlike, for example, WP:AUTHOR #3, which does specify that the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work. ... must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I do not see Julia Dunstall as an example to follow in AfD - it just happened that all the editors who voted there followed you in assuming that WP:NMODEL requires SIGCOV. I think that is a misinterpretation of WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying NMODEL and GNG automatically have to contradict each other, because obviously, every article is different. Some just happen to be both. The case with Dunstall is that though she did notable work such as Balenciaga (if we’re grasping for straws), there were simply no way to verify anything. We searched but just couldn’t find. I’m well aware of the “value” placed on a Prada show, that’s why I created Lineisy Montero and Anok Yai, for example. And that’s why I acknowledged that doing the Prada show could be an NMODEL. I never said it was definitive, it was just really matter of my own opinion and presumption. But where are the independent sources? That’s the thing. The thing no one can seem to find because believe me, I tried. The difference is that Montero and Yai have many sources to back them up, including an independent Harper’s Bazaar article that gave many details about Montero’s nascent career and a long Washington Post profile for Yai. Every model who does Prada doesn’t automatically go on to have the prestigious career that it’s said to be a launch pad for. That’s just not how the industry is. Every model who does Prada doesn’t automatically get a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, then Madison Leyes would have an article. If a model has notability, I’m sure she’d have more sources for her career.

Also, you can’t reference her agency for a job. It’s a primary source connected with the subject. Trillfendi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some sources that verify that she modelled for some of the brands mentioned. They are not SIGCOV, but if you're concerned about verifying that she had a career after Prada in 2009, they do verify that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know she’s had a career after Prada (I didn’t find out about her until 2016), it’s just that there has to be reliable sources for it. Emphasis on reliable. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point if all people can manage to do is muster up slide show images with no captions, and directories, then what I said about GNG is vindicated. No one can find a Vogue profile of any kind? I went to the last page of Google trying to. Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Trillfendi: NYMag, NYT Magazine, and Vogue are all RS whose statements about KA can be considered accurate and whose interest in KA demonstrates her notability as a model. She had a smashing debut in 2009, which many different sources talked about. This was not a case of her "doing" a show but of her opening for Prada and (more unusual) closing for them. Notability is not temporary but even now, a decade later, she is getting covers and other major appearances, getting mentioned by name in articles that are not specifically about her. Why? Because she is a notable model. There are multiple interviews of KA, in Interview magazine and on YouTube, because she is considered notable as a model. Your statement that "the deletion of Julia Dunstall proved: if the model doesn’t meet GNG then NMODEL is irrelevant" is not proved or even supported by that discussion, where 3 of the 4 Delete !voters specifically said that Dunstall failed NMODEL. Most of the people following this AfD agree that KA is notable. Instead of learning from this, you assert that you will create a new AfD if this one does not go your way: "if people can’t see that I’m definitely not above renominating in the future." Considering how many articles people usefully AfD every day (we all owe thanks to those people!) it is amazing that nearly half the articles you proposed for deletion have been Kept or even Speedy Kept.[21] If you try to learn from what other people say in these discussions, rather than just arguing for your own point of view, you will become a better editor. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Ostensibly you misunderstand the purpose of what NYMag profiles were meant to be (I’m just thankful they’re archived now that any and all model coverage now goes to The Cut). Thousands of unnotable models have them just as top models do and everyone in between*. Isn’t the purpose of a Wikipedia article to have in-depth, independent significant coverage to substantiate such information? You also misunderstand what a Model Wall style interview is. One source from T magazine with a few random questions like “what’s your favorite tv show?” can’t hold up an entire article. Then unknown Emily Ratajkowski got an entire editorial by NYT typically reserved for politicians just for being in a music video if you want to measure it that way. If that Vogue article about Prada models is anything to go by, then having given more space to Willow Hand and calling her a “key catwalker”, why was Hand’s page declined when another editor drafted it? It wasn’t formatted that well so I went in and fixed it up to get it approved, but all career information was there and she’d been noticed by Harper’s Bazaar? That same Vogue article mentioned Maartje Verhoef whose page was declined several times by another editor’s work because she quote “wasn’t shown to meet notability by the ‘simplest standards’” even though there were like 5 paragraphs of very detailed career summary and the same references you’re trying to justify! I fixed that one too but I digress. Since the hell when is YouTube considered a reliable source when I simply put that video there to clarify the chosen pronunciation of her name?

This isn’t about me. Perplexed why you would even “track” the ratio; I propose articles for deletion on criteria I believe it fits and let other editors decide what should be done based on their interpretation of those rules. Whether articles are kept or deleted I really don’t care. The only reason I’d renominate if I see the same problems persist over a period of time. Nothing about the process is personal or an indictment. But now the goal posts have now become musical chairs. The same reason you want to keep this article is the very same thing that gets articles declined or deleted time, time, time, and time again! Chase Carter has a Maxim cover, appeared in SI Swimsuit, profiled regionally, and by Fox News and Nylon. Declined until I pointed out the hypocrisy. Alanna Arrington...it took the likes Vogue US UK and AUS, W, Instyle, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch for her page to get approved and she’d been widely covered for her VS Fashion Show and fashion week jobs like opening Altuzzara. Aas doesn’t even meet scratch the surface of that significant coverage but I’m wrong for pointing it out? *So what should be done about Draft:Laragh McCann? A model who, like Aas, has a NYMag profile indicating that she was also a Prada exclusive in her career, debuted at Louis Vuitton, had a Valentino campaign, etc. I quickly realized upon drafting it that she would not meet GNG but she would obviously meet NMODEL. The administrator declined it because in her view there is “no evidence of notability” even though there are 5 sources given on her modeling and film work. I contacted her and she said “GNG outweighs subject specific guidelines”. Exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time!!!

I have no opinion as to whether this should be deleted or not, but must point out that the nominator has been canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sure did, because I believe his understanding of policy is very, very much needed here for this anomaly. He perfectly explained it over at the AfD for Carrie Salmon (which I nominated 6 days after this). I didn’t ask him for votes, but for comment.Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that what you posted there was a violation of WP:CANVASS, being about as far from neutral as it's possible to get and with the target clearly being picked bacause you thought that that editor would agree with your position. As I said, I haven't looked into notability so am neutral when it comes to keeping or deleting this, but I can see that by your canvassing you have poisoned the water to the extent that it will now be difficult to come to a consensus to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know WP:CANVASS was a thing, to be honest, so I’ll admit that I was ignorant in that sense. But I didn’t ask him to come here to agree with me. I asked him to explain the policy regarding notability for models, which is not about what I agree with but how it’s applied to all models. Whether the article is kept or deleted, notability for models regarding directories will have been changed henceforth because expample after example has shown that adminstrators (not involved with this particular AfD but on previous declinations of article creations) do not see models.com or directories as reliable sources, and that notability can’t be derived from mere mention. So that has made it quite confusing how this should be handled given that some think that directories give notability and improve article quality. That’s the standpoint I have been operating from since the jump. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” This has precisely been my intention behind having done it! I have no control over what people say or if / how they vote. Hell, he may even disagree with me. We just need to sort this NMODEL policy out since we all seem to have divergent understandings on how it correlates with GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. Canvassing. Calling for an RfC on the article's talk page while this article's nomination is still being discussed. Walls and walls of text. All because the voting hasn't gone your way. I was actually entirely finished with this discussion until I read the "“there’s a “we should keep it because she’s Estonian” bias over there by some editors as well” comment on the page you were canvassing. Are you kidding me? I wonder who that is directed at? Where in this discussion anywhere have I (or, anyone) stated this article should be kept because she happens to be Estonian (as I am)? There are plenty of crappy articles and stubs on Estonians who have little or tenuous notability that I would happily see go. You have made this accusation up whole cloth. "This isn't personal." Obviously, it is; you are seething that some of the articles you created for submission were declined. You even brought it up in the RfC you created. Now, you are just being spiteful and an obstructionist. As I already told you initially, I am not invested in this article. Whether it stays or goes, that's fine. But in all politeness, your behavior has been quite outrageous. Look, things don't always go your way. Accept it instead of lashing out. ExRat (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat: I do not care what “goes my way” on the Internet. When I say it’s not personal, it’s just that. I have no human emotion staked in what happens this certain article or any. But what I cannot stand for is every rule about general notability being torn up.

I called for an RfC specifically because going forth with ALL model articles there is a dire need of clarity on how directories contribute to notability or quality and general notability despite many many administrators stating otherwise. If this article is kept because NMODEL supercedes general notability that has to be applied to EVERY model’s article. The same rationale you have for keeping this article is the same rationale that gets model articles declined or deleted no matter who created it. I am not seething that articles I’ve created had been—evidently they were already created for me to have shown the history. I use the adminstrator comments on those to inform how I contribute in the future. And for what it’s worth... none have the 65 articles I have created so far have even come into the AfD space, so I must be following these policies right somehow. Now if you actually read what I said, I’m pointing out that administrators said that with the sources of models.com, the same ones used to justify keeping this article despite no signifcant coverage, notability is not met. And those other 3 pages which weren’t even my creation, I simply fixed them to be resubmitted and created, said the same thing. I legitimately wanted to know if NMODEL > GNG despite adminsitrator comments, then an article like Draft:Laragh McCann should be approved in that case. She has an NYMag profile after all... isn’t that what we’re going by here? (Whether it’s approved or not, I don’t care.)

Let it be known that I also have no feelings in who votes keep or delete because that’s everyone’s own choice. What I’m pointing out is the abject hypocrisy of saying NMODEL > GNG with no significant coverage from independent reliable sources when that is not the case any where else. I canvassed his page because he understands the NMODEL policy clear as day and I think he should expound on it in a situation like this. My comment about Estonian bias was flippant but when this article has “improved” in quality in the scope of WikiProject Estonia simply because of the deemed—unreliable models.com source, I presumed.

If I was “lashing out” about I would just blank pages but that’s not what we do here. We propose deletion based on policies. It’s just unfortunate that my ENTP personality makes me have to go back and forth bringing facts. Take care. Trillfendi (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG supersedes the subject-specific guidelines, and in this case there's not enough independent coverage to be able to write a neutral article that's not a permastub. (Disclosure: Trillfendi did mention this discussion on my talk page). However, I don't think that her behavior violates canvassing and request that commentators above assume good faith. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‼️ And I just want to say before anybody puts their foot on my neck and types me a black eye that I was on Buidhe’s talk page on Saturday about her review of Draft:Laragh McCann and how to approach it with regard to other people’s opinions on model notability vs. GNG here. I was not in any way there for canvassing like I did on Bearcat’s talk. I just wanted to be fair and tell her I had included her opinion in my previous comments.Trillfendi (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: The very first part of WP:N clearly says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it passes either GNG or one of the specified SNGs. Saying "GNG supersedes the subject-specific guidelines" does not accurately reflect WP:N. In this case, the notability issue is settled by passing NMODEL, independent of passing or not passing WP:GNG. Your point about the possibility of a permastub is obviously a reasonable thing to bring up, but that falls under WP:PAGEDECIDE, a separate section of WP:N that discusses what to do if a presumed notable subject might only ever be a permastub. Clearly worth discussing! But it has no bearing on the GNG vs. SNG notability issue, at least how WP:N is currently written. Bakazaka (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Tbh, I am not convinced that she meets the SNG either. NMODEL redirects to NENTERTAINER, which states that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is pretty subjective. If her role is all that significant, how come there's no RS discussing it? b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 09:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Since I haven't argued for her passing NMODEL, and instead have simply accepted the nominator's assessment of NMODEL in good faith (hence my Speedy Keep !vote above), I'm not sure what to tell you. Scrolling up, there is some discussion of Prada shows and so forth that might inform your question. Bakazaka (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ENTERTAINER also has the options of notability because the person "has a large fan base or a significant cult following", and/or because the person "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Both of those, obviously, are criteria that a model can easily meet even if having acting roles isn't normally on the menu for most models. Whether they're met here or not, I can't say — but by singling out the ENTERTAINER criterion that clearly only applies to actors as the be-all and end-all of notability over the ones that leave room for non-actors, you're making it sound like a model has to cross over into acting before she can satisfy NMODEL, which is very definitely not the case. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: You have obviously done nothing wrong, but Trillfendi's messages to Bearcat and you clearly violated WP:CANVASS as the recipients were chosen on the basis that they had agreed with her position before. The message to Bearcat was sent in ignorance of WP:CANVASS, but the message to you was sent after I had pointed out that this was unacceptable behaviour. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: In addition, when you go "forum shopping" as you did by opening first an RfC at Talk:Kätlin_Aas and immediately a second RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#RfC_for_quality_and_notability_guidelines_GNG_/_NMODEL, you should have notified the people currently taking part in this discussion, nearly all of whom disagree with you, of your forum shopping. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: When I notified the people of the first RfC (ubi supra), was I not barked at for even doing an RfC during an AfD? 🤔 I only did the second RfC at the advice of Buidhe’s comment, since it’s now an issue that concerns fashion-related articles (not what I intended this to become but here we are). Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: It would be really good if you could take this less personally. Your "Estonian" comments when you canvassed @Bearcat: are really over the top. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Sarcasm doesn’t translate in print. Like I explained earlier, it was a flippant remark. I wasn’t serious. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of notability WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" [such as NMODEL]. Aas is a notable model, who made a smashing debut in 2009 and now, almost a decade later, is still doing top-level modeling and getting name-tagged in articles about other things. As for coverage in independent sources, the article links to interviews with Aas in Interview (magazine) and The New York Times Style Magazine. Vogue in 2012 mentions her as "many now-famous names." Fashionista includes her as one of the "top fashion models of 2012." Vogue Italy calls her "The Estonian model that has enchanted designers." The sole criterion for notability of a model should not be the existence of lengthy in-depth interviews, if only because (in the interviews of Aas that we have) she is not very articulate. It deprives our readers of a useful resource if we delete articles about notable people they might want to learn more about. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again with the “smashing debut” partisan yet for some reason, the only source given for jobs is models.com who doesn’t even bother to link to actual sources, and slideshow images). That’s what I’m talking about. If the debut was as smashing as you say, more reliable sources would be out there. You know who’s several decades into her career and got a Vogue cover last year? Debra Shaw. But she doesn’t even have an article currently. Chinese model Jing Wen, who is also best known for her Prada work (including being in the Prada show just two days ago) had a breakout so successful that American Vogue almost immediately started calling her a top model, yet the comments initially declining the drafts said: “Establishing notability requires significant coverage. In its current state, this submission would likely be deleted because it consists mostly of promotional material. There is an overwhelming list of cites to the model's agency. The other coverage seems to be brief mentions and publicity, such as the paragraph in the cbsnews cite. None of this contributes to notability.” This is the standard I abide by. How is Aas’s article any different from that? When I proposed deletion, it looked like this. 2 sentences for career including an obsolete models.com link and for some reason someone decided it’s relevant to put who her friends are in the career section. Almost 0 reliable sources. You can’t tell me that met NMODEL just because it says she did a smattering of jobs. You can’t reference a model’s agency for career highlights and say that’s notability or improving the article-she’s employed by them. Yet that’s all people seem to come up with for verifying covers and what not, agencies and directories. If you want to see what an actual, substantial New York Times interview / profile with models looks like it’s something like this. It’s not from the Sunday T magazine asking “what time do you get up in the morning?” Fashionista is a blog, for God’s sake. And it doesn’t matter whatsoever whether she’s articulate, things shouldn’t be different for her than other articles. Trillfendi (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this article is kept or not will be decided by 1) Wikipedia policy and 2) the existence of RS that demonstrate her notability according to NMODEL. If a topic is notable, as demonstrated by RS, it deserves an article. This AfD has ZERO connection to your rejected articles about models you prefer to KA. Please take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and note particularly WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. This article now has many RS supporting the career information of KA. Your statement above "the only source given for jobs is models.com" is just patently false. I am adding more RS about her debut, since you apparently doubt that it happened or that it was noteworthy. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: What hypocrisy. Other stuff exists and arguments to avoid are an ESSAY not a policy. “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” This isn’t about models I “prefer” but obviously you feel that way because you keep talking about her “smashing debut” (who talks like that?) with blithe un-neutrality. This is about the consistency of standards applied to every model. And the pages were created when I rectified the issues commented; that’s what I’m pointing out if you use your reading comprehension. You can check them out if you want. Some of the pages were started by other editors anyway. It’s not about the history of the article but fact that notability had to be evidenced with significant coverage from reliable sources no matter what job a model does. Now what is patently false about the fact that the ONLY citations given for the sentence “Aas has also appeared in Polish,[23] Mexican,[13] German,[24] Chinese,[25] Russian,[26] Japanese[27] and Italian editions of Vogue.[28]” and the Vogue Portugal cover is indeed models.com? Patently goddamn true. See for yourself. Trillfendi (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I agree that notability must be established by RS. Where we disagree is this: you say that even if a model passes NMODEL (based on reliable sources, we both agree) then the model must also meet GNG to have an article. Wikipedia policy disagrees with you there and so do I. I think KA is notable according to Wikipedia policy because her career (NMODEL) can be documented using RS such as The Cut, NY Magazine, Interview Magazine, Vogue, Vogue Italia, and others. I am a "partisan" only in the sense of arguing for the article to be kept as notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not “Wikipedia policy” that disagrees with me, it’s you. The prevailing belief among lots of editors on this website is that just having jobs isn’t enough, there has to be independent significant coverage (GNG) in tandem with it. Until this AfD came along it was an uncontroversial norm. I’m sure you didn’t know this girl even existed until you decided you just wanted to turn this into one-upmanship. In your mind, my opinion is invalid because you think I’m wrong and I should be silent. Or somehow, this is about my “preference” (if you really care, I love a raven-haired beauty), and I shouldn’t dare look for solutions to a gaping dissonance. After making approximately 59 articles so far about fashion models, one could surmise I’m learned on the subject by now. When someone has to grasp for straws (Lexposure.net is not a real thing.) and still can’t find the majority of her work without resorting to slide shows and directories, something doesn’t add up. And once again, NY Magazine’s defunct model profile pages have nothing to do with notability, that’s probably why they don’t even do it anymore. If that were true, go make an article for the hundreds of models in that outdated database that still labels Cara Delevigne as a newcomer. Trillfendi (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Wikipedia policy trumps "belief among lots of editors" until and unless those editors change our policy. Wikipedia policy reflects the decision of many editors on how our encyclopedia should be run. For example, the part of WP:N you disagree with, that "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (quoting Wikipedia:N as of January 14, 2009 was already Wikipedia policy a decade ago and has not been changed, despite any local consensus to ignore it. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.” That is what “a lot of editors” completely unrelated to this AfD abide by for every subject but YOU think NMODEL is exempt from that just because of the brands they work for. Appearance is not notability. You think being remotely mentioned in a list by Vogue is being profiled by Vogue (it’s not...), you think a compilation of runway slideshows is a Vogue editorial (it’s not...), you think 10 question random questions by T like “What’s on your iPod Shuffle?“ is equivalent to being profiled by the New York Times (meanwhile the actual New York Times give more career synopsis to newbies). An article can’t stand on bare bones. When it comes down to finding sources for her work all that y’all seem to find is modeling agencies, random blogs, and models.com. Whereas real magazines are supposed to have that information. Y’all even tried to throw a manufactured Twitter controversy in there. Trillfendi (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: "Presumed to be notable" is not the same as actually notable. How is one supposed to write a neutral, non-stub wikipedia article without significant coverage in multiple sources? b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree with WP:NRVE that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." "Significant attention" refers to attention from those qualified to judge if the achievement was notable or not, for example writers at Vogue, The Cut, NYT Style Magazine, etc. can judge if a model is noteworthy or not. "Significant attention" does not necessarily mean long stories and interviews (few professors would be wikinotable if NPROFESSOR didn't trump GNG.) We have many stub and otherwise imperfect articles about notable topics. WP:CONTN and WP:PAGEDECIDE both address those concerns of yours. Neither supports deleting an article about a notable subject. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with stubs. Many articles in traditional paper encyclopedias would be considered stubs in Wikipedia. And, anyway, the question of whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources about Kätlin Aas is answered by the fact that it has been done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s no coincidence that her Estonian article et:Kätlin Aas is one sentence and absolutely unreferenced.Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, it really is. Have you seen the actual state of the entry for Karmen Pedaru at Estonian Wikipedia? I am Estonian and even I rarely edit on Estonian Wikipedia. Has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Also, I see you have referred to the "manufactured Twitter" controversy. Postimees has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Estonia. Õhtuleht is the second largest newspaper in Estonia. Both WP:RS. Kroonika is also a very popular magazine (less reputable, more of a "gab mag", but still very popular). Gap Inc. publicly commented on the issue. Manufactured by whom? Also, I would tend to think, for a model, four Vogue covers and (at least) nine Vogue editorials counts as notable in the industry. Opening and closing a Prada show counts in the industry. You can quibble with the sources – they all flat out show the covers and editorials – so, you know she had them. In that profession, that certainly meets WP:N. Not all models of note become a Twiggy or a Naomi Campbell and can still be notable; their success is generally measured by their appearances on magazine covers and in editorials and in campaigns and on runways. They aren't all often known or notable for comprehensive details about their lives. You're arguing over a precedent, not this article. ExRat (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, which is about whether we should keep this article on the English Wikipedia. There just doesn't happen to have been anyone at the Estonian Wikipedia, which, by the fact that there are orders of magnitude fewer people who understand Estonian than understand English, certainly has far fewer editors than the English Wikipedia, who has expanded the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 25 unreliable souces in this article by now. Take them out and you’re left with maybe 4 at the most that could be considered reliable which for no reason are formatted to be blurbs at the bottom to clog space and distract from the fact that the majority of the others are from unreliable sources. (The fact that “Lexposure.net” keeps being put in there when it was nothing more than a BLOG, not an actual magazine, yet being reference as such, is the kind of shit I’m talking about, but what do I know). Half of her work, for whatever reason, is not verifiable. For example, “models.com” is referenced for her Vogue covers yet the source given for two of them is Facebook for crying out loud!!! And for Portugal, nenhum resultado encontrado. It’s a catch-22. Trillfendi (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of those covers/editorials can be cited directly to the source magazines, which are reliable primary sources for their own content (just like books or TV episodes are reliable primary sources for their plot summaries on Wikipedia). Clearly the scanned images on models.com and similar sites provide a convenience for the reader, as not everyone has access to Vogue archives, and it's not exactly a controversial BLP claim at stake. But it's easy enough to meet the letter of the law by directly citing the issues in/on which she appeared, and leaving the readers to go find their own scans, or the Vogue Portugal photographer's website [22], or whatever. Bakazaka (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say it as if it’s VA records, not content supposed accessible on a magazine’s website. The problem is, the circulation of Vogues that aren’t the Big Four (American, British, Paris, and Italia and I’ll put Vogue China and Australia as honorable mentions) is so low that they’re almost irrelevant. Big Four Vogues get the most prestige therefore its models get the most coverage. Sara Grace Wallerstedt for example, her first cover was Vogue Italia. Of course that helped put her nascent career on the map for American Vogue to go all the way to her hometown for an editorial in their magazine. Regional Vogues aren’t on the same calibre, unfortunately, so no one besides models stans even know which cover is which. They don’t get the same publicity. If Wikipedia allowed social media as references it’d be a different case, people could just pull random Instagram posts from their account for things. The idea of “but she has a Vogue cover!” yet no reliable sources for 3/4 is ineffectual. Frankly, one is better off using a photographer’s website than “models.com” in a situation like that, but that’s probably not appropriate here. Trillfendi (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't entirely follow what you're saying, it sounds like you have a lot of thoughts about gradations of importance between different international editions of magazines. That would be a great thing to discuss on the RfC that you opened during this AfD (the 2nd RfC, not the 1st RfC), where some of the discussion currently is about proposing specific guidelines for NMODEL to help clarify these kinds of distinctions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several times over. (invited by bot to the RFC) Apparently it's accepted that she meets the SNG. Structurally in Wikipedia that's enough. But if it didn't, you'd need an unusually stringent application of GNG to reject passage under GNG. I spot checked about 10 of the references that were independent articles (not just listings) and, despite lack of in-depth coverage of her in those 10, all supported real-world notability. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say there’s lack of in-depth coverage. How is “stringent” to say the article should meet GNG? Still, from what people have tried to dig up from 6 feet under on Al Gore’s Internet, nothing goes beyond a single paragraph or even a sentence in several. You really believe that’s “enough”? In that case user Buidhe is right. This would always be a permanent stub unable to go any further. This is what I mean by we need ratification of an updated clearer level because there are many contradictions going on about this. Trillfendi (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: it appears that you have nominated this and other articles about models for deletion because some such articles that you created were deleted, and are looking for consistency in the application of rules. Such consistency does not exist in Wikipedia. If subjects nominated for deletion are clear-cut "keeps" or "deletes" then that will happen, but there is a large middle ground where the decision is based on the luck of the draw in who chooses to participate in the deletion discussion. I have seen many decisions that I strongly believe to be based on ignorance, but part of the wiki model is that we often have to let such things go rather than argue incessantly about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: You’re wrong—none of the pages I’ve created have ever been deleted. So that’s your ignorance. The only deletions were when I accidentally created a page when I meant to put it in the draft and requested it’s speedy deletion myself. That was Abolish ICE, approved months ago and another draft not submitted yet. All those other articles I referenced previously where drafts that have been approved long ago, even years. I simply took into account what the issues were and try to apply an even hand to every article. If anybody sees the need to propose deletion of any article I’ve created, no one is stopping them. I would expect them to go based on what they believe about it and let others put their input in. Trillfendi (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was ignorant. My advice, and it is only advice rather than any sort of argument against your position, is to stop investing so much time and energy into something as trivial as getting a Wikipedia article about a model who may or may not be notable deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What started as a simple acknowledgement that though she did Prada, she doesn’t have independent significant coverage, somehow turned into Lord of the Flies and shoot the messenger. I didn’t take it there. The outcome of it doesn’t affect me either way. This isn’t a crusade. If it was up to me this process would have been done quickly but I started the AfD so I might as well see it through. And then it’s on to the next one. I just can’t stand with hypocrisy, the same principles have to be applied everywhere. Regardless of it all, something has to change going forth. Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some might say it is hypocritical that an editor who has stated unequivocally (over and over) in this discussion that this article has cited models.com as a source, but has used models.com as a source in nearly every article they have created about fashion models, as well as online boutiques, blogs, and the model's agencies as references – all things you have also taken issue with in this discussion. Just out of curiosity (though admittedly, it has no bearing on this nomination), how does an example article you created such as Julia Banaś compare to this article? Seems by your standards, that article should be up for deletion. Ticks everything you complained about in this nomination: models.com, blogs, boutiques, silly & fluffy "10 questions with...", and then random pictures with little to no coverage other than an image. Peculiar. ExRat (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wow! revisiting afds that are over a week old, have just read this epic afd (over 8th words compared to around 550 in the article), as it is quite long i thought i would summarise it: 3 "deleters" (including the nominator), 7 "keepers", 2 neutral, nominator/deleters suggests Aas may be notable under WP:NMODEL but not enough indepth/significant WP:RS coverage, keepers say Aas meets WP:NMODEL (and some WP:GNG as well) and the coverage in the article is okay to use, all in all its pretty even, i reckon this article will be kept either outright ("keepers" may just have it on the sng, and not just because there are more of them) or as no consensus because there is good reasoning on both sides (btw, if any editors think i have got it wrong please send me a trout or two:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. Just a wish to see this closed a.s.a.p. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no rationale for deletion presented. Even if the nom (who has less than 50 total edits) makes claims about political bias in the media that are correct, it would still be a notable topic. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump administration family separation policy

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

The article is about a non-existing policy. The whole article is based on false statements in "reputable news sources" and misunderstandings of a rather complex topic. Due to the enormous political polarization in the U.S. news media, many of the large news organizations ended up prioritizing a blame game for the humanitarian crisis at the border and creating political narratives rather than correctly and truthfully reporting the cause of the family separations. The Trump Zero Tolerance Policy did not contain one word about separating families. The quote from Jeff Session in this article relating to this, is used to falsely imply that the Zero Tolerance Policy was responsible, but if you read the quote then the last part of it reveals the ACTUAL cause of the separations: "If you cross the border unlawfully ... then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we'll prosecute you. ... If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as REQUIRED BY LAW."

The only cause of those family separations was a 2016 court ruling on the Flores Settlement(which partly reversed a 2015 ruling). No policy of the Trump administration changed anything in this regard. The executive order that Trump issued that finally solved this crisis did NOT reverse, remove or change the Zero Tolerance Policy in any way. It is still fully effective. The executive order only directed the Attorney General to request with the U.S. District Court to change the Flores settlement. Here is that relevant section from the executive order:

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.^[1]

For more background on this issue, I recommend reading the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy, and reading the Flores Settlement(originally from 1997), and all the subsequent revisions of it, especially the 2015 court ruling and the 2016 part reversal of the 2015 court ruling. This article has many "reputable" sources, but is nonetheless false and biased propaganda from the title to large parts of the text. I strongly recommend it be deleted. BreakingZews (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484300/read-trump-executive-order-family-separation-immigration-full-text

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG, obviously. If the nom believes that the name of the article is wrong, then the process for this is WP:RM, not AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Extensively covered. One of the big political issues of 2018 in the largest Western democracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: While the subject matter is notable, I question whether the title is appropriate, and the content also reads in a manner more similar to a propaganda piece WP:SOAP than a suitable entry in an encyclopedia, with an almost exclusive focus on one side of the issue - and while WP:FALSEBALANCE is a thing, I do not believe it applies here, given that the contrary view is not WP:FRINGE. With that said, I also suspect that this deletion proposal is motivated by ideology, abet in the opposite direction, given the interest in an outright delete and no interest in repairing the article. As such, my position is a weak delete, with the intent of such a deletion being that a clean slate is created for a new article covering this topic, but with a neutral point of view and a more accurate title - WP:STARTOVER. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the U.S. President and numerous high-level members of his administration push falsehoods and WP:FRINGE theories, this doesn't suddenly make those views non-fringe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but the simple fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world holds a view generally suggests it is not fringe, particularly on topics like this where the validity of a view cannot be proven or disproven. Equally importantly, this view is not fringe amongst the general American Population; iirc 25% of said group supports it. NoCOBOL (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may need a new title, but the subject is notable QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, I question your judgement. Clearly you have an agenda here. If you don’t think the article is accurate then take your qualms to the talk page to improve it! Trillfendi (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination is frivolous. Neutrality^talk 16:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much more than just the name of the article is wrong. Almost the entire article is based on pure political propaganda WP:SOAP. This article is simply amplifying one of the most extensively propagated falsehoods I have ever seen in the U.S. media. Wikipedia should be about presenting factual information, not just presenting false media reports with obvious political bias as truth. There was no Trump administration family separation policy. The family separations were a direct consequence of the court rulings on the Flores settlement. Those are the facts, still the article is entirely based around this incorrect notion that the family separations were a result of a Trump policy. BreakingZews (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe that all you want, but yours are alternative facts. The Trump policy is not a continuation of Obama policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This appears to be a POV nomination arguing that Trump has the same "family separation policy" as Obama. He doesn't. (I know that source is the Washington Post, and therefore Trump defenders can yell "FAKE NEWS!" all they want to ignore it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and widely discussed in reliable sources. Our job is to summarize neutrally what the full range of reliable sources say. Rejecting reliable sources that come to conclusions that some editors do not like for political reasons is contrary to the policies and guidelines of this enyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trump had no policy of separating families, and I have not said anything about Obama or his policies. The facts are easily available without the political distortion in the heavily polarized U.S. media, by accessing the documents involved directly. Read the Zero Tolerance Policy, it does not contain a single word about separating families, and read the 2015 and 2016 court rulings on the Flores settlement. The 2015 ruling ordered that both "accompanied children" and their mother/parents should not be held in detention, while the 2016 ruling partly reversed the 2015 ruling in such a way that it did not cover the children's parents. Meaning that applying the law ment that the parents should be prosecuted and detained while the children could not be detained due to the 2016 ruling. That 2016 ruling is the cause of increase in family separations after Trump became President. Those are the facts. There has never been any Trump policy of separating families, and if you contest that, then please point to that policy and the wording that orders the separation of children from their families. It doesn't exist. The Trump administration does have a policy of following the law, including the rulings on the Flores settlement. BreakingZews (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was an enormous misinformation campaign on this issue in the U.S. media, including(or even especially) in what often has been considered "reliable sources", WA PO, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and many others. Wikipedia should not be amplifying political propaganda. The Zero Tolerance Policy simply ment that illegal immigrants that (obviously) break the law by entering the country unlawfully should be prosecuted according to the law, no exceptions. The Flores settlement was the only reason that the children and parents could not be kept together when the parents were detained. Here is a link to the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement Flores Settlement 2016 ruling And here is a link to the Jeff Sessions memo on Zero Tolerance Policy: Zero Tolerance Policy BreakingZews (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Assaraf

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Forbes and Entrepreneur pieces are from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per WP:RSP. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable author and actor. I cant see any reliable sources. AD ^Talk 07:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sounds promotional more than anything and if his company was so special it'd probably already have an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable claim is that he appeared as an Entrepreneur in The Secret documentary. The claims of "behavior expert" and "brain research and brain retraining" seem to be a case of WP:PUFF, considering that more recent, albeit (primary) sources state that he is not a medical doctor or research scientist. Article appears promotional. Sadsignal (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello everyone. I created this page because I found his books interesting and heard him on podcasts, also from The Secret. I was surprised there wasn't a page already. I am keen on self-help and self-improvement material and based this entry on those of other author/speakers such as Tony Gaskins and Tim Hurson, who I didn't think were as notable. Please advise if I can make this better. I'm new to this and the process is fascinating. You guys know best. GLingham (Talk) 10:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was procedural close. The nominator hasn't made it clear what they are arguing for here, hasn't responded when questioned here, and have removed the AfD notice by redirecting the page after opening this discussion, and with nobody else arguing for any particular action here, there is no basis for keeping this open. Michig (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Can See Your Voice (Philippines season 2)

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

"Season 2" article was already merged with Season 1. Hiwilms (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused. Why didn't you just switch redirects by copying the content of I Can See Your Voice (Philippines season 1) to List of I Can See Your Voice (Philippine game show) episodes, and then redirecting Season 1 and Season 2 to the respective parts of the article? AfD feels unneccesary to me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalric Romance (2000 film)

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Russian actors such as Sergey Bezrukov and Vasili Lanovoy playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:FILM.--RTY9099 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film from notable film studios with notable Russian Actors. For a non-english movie this old, sources are hard to find online, but we cannot assume it did not have received notable coverage in Russian at the time without checking in the newspapers from the time period.Emass100 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Global

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

created by a banned user Gauravsinghgehlot BBSTOP (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have pulled the speedy, as I've kept a watch on this page since the first nom for its associated network under its former Liquidation Channel name. Since then I've kept constant control of the page to make sure the folks at Vaibhav Global and their accounts aren't turning it into an outright WP:ADVERT. Certainly some corporate cruft can be removed, but at worst, a redirect to Shop LC should be the maximum result. I always get suspicious of accounts that just arise out of nowhere and their first move is to laser-target certain pages for deletion; please declare any connections you may have for or against the subject of these pages. Nate • (chatter) 07:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shop LC and Vaibhav Global both are the same shopping network and created by the blocked users User:Gauravsinghgehlot and User:HarjinderSB. Please attention both the users are the sock puppet of User:Vkdutta4u. Attention, most of the contributors on this article are blocked: User:Mcseladana, User:HarjinderSB, User:Gauravsinghgehlot, User:Ramendra.singh. And all these accounts are sock puppets of User:Vkdutta4u
BBSTOP (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Their contributions have all but been overwritten since 2015 already. Nate • (chatter) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Sellers

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Article has remained a poorly-sourced stub with little activity since its creation in 2005, likely because of next to no viable third-party coverage of the subject despite an overabundance of namedropping wikilinked musicians in attempt to establish notability. Only two articles were found (LA Times & LA Weekly), but they're two decades apart from each other and were published to coincide with upcoming show dates. GBooks search returned only passing mentions. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ring-Jarvi

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO, WP:SPORTSPERSON (sources:[23], [24], [25], [26])--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A LinkedIn bio and stats pages do not count as sources towards meeting GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the prior AfD had a few other sources, some of which I can't link to now, but there is at least this one from Norway plus the Free Press articles Path slopu produced. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's yet to be any source produced that isn't a stat page or routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE, either now or in the prior AfD. Beyond that, the subject played Division III college hockey, a single season in Norway, a single season in the mid-minors, and has to be one of the most marginal hockey players ever to survive an AfD in the first place. Ravenswing 20:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable hockey player / career. Canada Hky (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources that go far enough to meet WP:GNG. Only stats or routine. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crosty

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

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls just short of the 200 game mark. Cannot find significant coverage on him either regarding hockey. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minor-leaguer with unheralded and ephemeral career. Ravenswing 20:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor league player with no hockey related accomplishments or significant coverage. Canada Hky (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shop LC

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

created by a blocked user BBSTOP (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged the page for speedy deletion so there's no need to bring this to AfD. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have pulled the speedy, as I've kept a watch on this page since the first nom and deletion for it under its former Liquidation Channel name (and as a constant contributor, a notice is required to my talk page; you didn't do that). Since then I've kept constant control of the page to make sure the folks at Vaibhav Global and their accounts aren't turning it into an outright WP:ADVERT, and pretty much overwrote most of the blocked user's edits, so it's disqualified from SD under those grounds. It's a shopping network, but it has nearly national cable and satellite coverage and plenty of sourcing in the basic sense. And I always get suspicious of accounts that just arise out of nowhere and their first move is to laser-target certain pages for deletion; please declare any connections you may have for or against the subject of these pages. Nate • (chatter) 07:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Shop LC and Vaibhav Global both are the same shopping network and created by the blocked users User:Gauravsinghgehlot and User:HarjinderSB. Please attention both the users are the sock puppetry of User:Vkdutta4u. BBSTOP (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

**sock puppets ―Abelmoschus Esculentus

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry BBSTOP (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment First, can't vote! twice in an AfD. Second, I overwrote their promotional junk as soon as the page was reposted, so it's disqualified from SD. Third, Gauravsinghgehlot never edited this page specifically. Please state a policy-based reason for deletion besides removing banned user contribs which were addressed already three years back and declare any conflicts.. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ you saying Gauravsinghgehlot never edited this page but he is the banned user and sock puppet of user:Vkdutta4u. and as per my understanding a sock puppet user is that who handles multiple accounts. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. and it clearly proves that both the pages Vaibhav Global and Shop LC are created by the same user user:Vkdutta4u who is banned and have a close connection with the company. BBSTOP (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, you cannot vote for your deletion. Stop adding "delete" to further comments. And as I will reiterate again, as soon as I saw their promotional edits, I removed them and re-wrote the page in full to be as neutral as possible (I expected the re-creation and kept the page on my watchlist after the first deletion, specifically to make sure their edits didn't stick). Their original content is all but gone from this page. G5 can't be used three years after the page was created; multiple users have already all but obliterated the original PROMO tone of this page. Nate • (chatter) 07:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Per the strong rationale presented by Squeamish Ossifrage. Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American generals and admirals

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, and this article doesn't meant the requirements of WP:LISTN - namely, there are no notable sources discussing the group as a set. NoCOBOL (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list cruft. Trillfendi (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR actually uses "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" as the canonical example of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, which is exactly what we have here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am inclined to think that LISTN is a relevant guideline here, to judge whether this particular grouping is notable. This list would seem to be an arbitrary subset of Category:American Jews in the military (which itself may or may not pass WP:OCAT, I don't know), but that would also suggest that a list that doesn't just focus on certain officer ranks would avoid that issue. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage's point about this non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. --Lockley (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic was the subject of an exhibition at Florida Atlantic University—documented a few different places, e.g. here. This article available from the Times of Israel concerns representation of Jews in the military, including among flag officers, and how that has interacted with anti-Semitism in the American military. This article from Encyclopedia Judaica also places great emphasis on Jewish flag officers toward understanding the place of Jews in the American military. (It also notes how the treatment of Jewish flag officers is indicative of the broader place of Jews within the military—see Fascist Italy's firing of its Jewish flag officers in 1938.) So this topic has received sufficient coverage to be notable, in my view. If my view does not prevail, I would be grateful if the closer would userfy the article into my userspace. I've been mining its redlinks for notable topics in recent weeks, and continued access to its contents and history would be helpful. Lagrange 613 19:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one exhibit at a university does not justify an article. Also when people are following issues in Italy to justify having an article on Americans we clearly are not defining the scope well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In terms of whether the topic is notable, I certainly find sources for "Jewish generals", eg 'Lincoln's Jewish generals', Jewish World Review Feb. 16, 2001 [27]; 'Out Of Control', The New York Jewish Week, November 29, 2011 [28]; 'The Jews in the World War' (not just about generals, but gives the number of Jewish generals in each army, their names, positions, etc) The Jewish Veteran, Volumes 7-9, November 1938 [29]; 140 Jewish Marshals, Generals & Admirals by Eli Rubin, 1952 [30]; and it's a subject heading in the Library of Congress [31], [32] (although it doesn't seem to be used to catalogue books very accurately - The General : William Levine, citizen soldier and liberator comes up doing a search of everything for Jewish generals, but is not actually categorised under "Jewish generals" although clearly described as both Jewish and a general [33]). "Jewish admirals" brings up fewer results, but given that it's the equivalent rank in the navy to the army and air force general, it can't really be left out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Sergey Zhukov. clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V Poiskah Nezhnosti

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

A non-notable Sergey Zhukov's musical album.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sergey Zhukov per common practice for albums without independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Sergey Zhukov. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Territoriya

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

A non-notable Sergey Zhukov's musical album.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedy to me.Trillfendi (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Assuming in good faith that Sergey Zhukov is notable (and I really haven't tried to evaluate), his album titles are plausible search terms, and so should be redirected to the artist if they lack independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to Sergey Zhukov) per Squeamish' arguments. There isn't notability established but it's a feasible search term. If the artist turns out not to be notable himself, then this will obviously be deleted with it. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg (music group)

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

It is unlikely that a significant musical group without awards and links.--RTY9099 (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a well-known rock band in Russia and has been going since 69. The proper name for the band is Sankt Peterburg. The book St. Petersburg: A Cultural History by Solomon Volkov refers to the band as a "Trail Blazer". Vladimir Rekshan has a status as well. See page 532 Karl Twist (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say it because you can expand with info from the Russian version of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NBAND. But move to Sankt Peterburg (band). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mne s Toboy Horosho

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

A non-notable song Russian pop band. No value, no reliable sources.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article claims that the cover version by Haiducii made the charts in Austria and Italy but I can find no evidence of this. However, this may be the result of language and I may change my stance if someone knowledgeable finds evidence of chart placement. But even if the chart claim is correct, that might be useful info for the Haiducii article. For the version by that band and the original version by Ruki Vverh!, all I can find via searching for "Mne s Toboy Horosho" and the Russian title "Mне с Tобой Xорошо" are routine listings at typical retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mne s Toboy *Ne* Horosho I've heard of the band Ruki Vverkh! (why isn't the k in there?), so it's not a complete no name song/group. But darned if I could find anything for the song to indicate notability. I didn't do an off-Wiki search for the group and would guess there's a 50-50 chance somebody could find indications of notability for the group, but its article also shows no sign of notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JnC

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/JnC

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

No sources; doesn't meet notability guidelines K-popguardian (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question K-popguardian, can you please clarify whether you meant this to be a PROD or an AfD nomination? Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It was meant to be AfD but I messed it up.-K-popguardian (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources in article, and I couldn't find any reliable secondary ones elsewhere. Doesn't pass WP:NBAND afaict. Don't think a redirect is beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was only a one time album collaboration similar to Tablo x Taeyang and TRAX+Air. There really isn't any sort of notability for such an article, not that there's any sources anyway.-76.174.35.70 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Socotra

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is not sourced not notible and most importantly false and provides a lot of unsourced biased materials SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t really understand why this is at AfD. The topic is notable, the content is at least partially sourced (additional sources would be good). If the issue is that some of the content is incorrect then surely the answer is to correct it, providing sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As well as the two sources in the article, a Google Books search (WP:BEFORE?) shows further coverage (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, etc.) indicating topic notability per WP:GEOLAND. (It may be that the article would be better merged into Socotra however.) I agree with Mccapra that the basis for this nomination is unclear: better to use normal editing to flag/verify any contentious content. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i do not know why the nominator, prior to this afd, removed a factual referenced statement, that Socotra is part of the Somali Plate (possibly to reinforce their incorrect nomination words that "The article is not sourced"), as it is relevant, i have reinstated it to the article's lead. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of unsourced and a hell of biased pov. Statements that aren't sourced will be deleted without questioning for the source because they are false SharabSalam (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing about this article is a cause for deletion. Rather, this appears to be a continuation of the nominator's efforts to remove factual, sourced information from the article for, I suspect, nationalist reasons. I've reviewed at least one of the sources, confirmed the accuracy of the removed content, and restored a previous version of the article (while cleaning up some of the text and making the citations explicit and inline). There's actually quite a bit of room for expansion here, as other sources exist that would provide both more details and better context. But that's clearly not a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Current article is verifibly sourced and a quick search of refseek, an academic search engine, returns quite a few more articles on "Geology of Socotra" by scientific, peer reviewed journals which can be added to the article. I can't add them today but should be able to in the next few days. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment reply to @Aurornisxui, Squeamish Ossifrage, and Coolabahapple: Here is a list of there of the best islands in the world according to google: Bali, Santorini, Maui do we have a saperated geology article of any of these Island(and this applies to any non independent Island article in Wikipedia)? Actually there is no article for a geology of a non independent place. I wonder why there is an odd case on Socotra article? why can't it be in one article? if this article passed afd discussion I will make tons of articles about geology of any non independent place, thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't the place to talk about merging, that would be WP:MERGE. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I firstly nominated this article for deletion there were only two references in this large article and it had a lot of WP:OR and WP:POV issues also the fact that article like this shouldn't exist in the first place as a saperated article now things has changed and there are actual sourced materials in this article so I think they should be merged into Socotra article and that wasn't possible when the article was only 1-2 references.SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid rationale presented. The nominator's first edit to the article (which was reverted) shows that they have a problem with the name Somali plate. The AfD nom came straight after. Since this is factual, I can only surmise that the nom's issue is political, in not wanting Socotra associated with Somalia. Wikipedia does not care about such sensitivities, and it is being disruptive to try and purge it regardless of what is clearly found in sources. So someone please close this and stop AfD effort being wasted on it. SpinningSpark 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: There is no political reason behind the nomination!! Stop assuming bad faith. The only reason is that the article was not sourced and most of it was POV plus as I said here is a list of three best islands in the world according to google: Bali, Santorini, Maui do we have a saperated geology article of any of these Island(and this applies to any non independent Island article in Wikipedia)? Actually there is no article for a geology of a non independent place. I wonder why there is an odd case on Socotra article? why can't it be in one article? if this article passed afd discussion I will make tons of articles about geology of any non-independent place!!! The article when I nominated to deletion was full of WP:OR and WP:POV issues and also the user who created the article has a history of creating geology articles and lot of them are getting nominated for deletion [35]

in fact the user was also warned about this issue in his talk page way before I even discovered this page by another user. you seem not to care about what is going on and what is happening just pointing immediately your finger to me saying I hold the a point of view.

SharabSalam (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC); added another reply SharabSalam (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you have said there is either false or meaningless:

The article was not unsourced (at least, not completely unsourced) when you nominated it, as has already been pointed out to you, so please stop making that allegation.
Nobody is agreeing with you that the article is POV, your deletions from the article make no sense and have largely been restored. You eiter need to desist with that allegation, or explain what POV is being promoted by the use of "Somali plate".
What google thinks are the "three best islands" is utterly irrelevant, and I've no idea how you extracted that from google. As usual, you provide no link or evidence. Whether or not an island is independent is not relevant. Our criteria for inclusion of a subject are at WP:GNG, and if a subject meets it, it can have an article. SpinningSpark 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, or doesn't exist. Wikipedia is not finished so those kinds of arguments have no validity at AfD.
On your threat to "make tons of articles about geology of any non-independent place", normally, I would say yes, why not, if they can be sourced, go ahead. But you so clearly do not know what you are doing that I would strongly discourage that.
I'm not seeing any of the user's other geology articles up for deletion as you claim. Linking to the user's contributions log is useless. I checked about a dozen of them and they are all still up with no nomination. Please use diffs for claims like that, or link directly to the AfDs.
The user has not been warned. At least, they have not been warned for creating geology articles. Again, please use diffs for claims like that. Far from being warned, the user should be congratulated for creating so many geology articles for Wikipedia.

To continue to raise points that other's have already shown you are incorrect shows that you have a very bad case of WP:IDHT. SpinningSpark 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that statement about Somalia and I am going to say this once and for all hoping you would understand and never mention this again; if you repeated again your accusations I am going to report this to other administers. Stop assuming bad faith!!!!!! Okay? Secondly I said I am against creating an independent article about Socotra when it can easily be merage with no problem to Socotra article in geology section. And I might also need to repeat saying that when I firstly nominated this article for deletion it was only 1-2 source and it was larger than this and full of WP:POV issues like Socotra is initially located in Oman or something like that that I couldn't find source of and was likely to be original research. The reason why Im repeating this is because your ignored all of what I said and started talking about Somalia WTH IS WRONG WITH YOU? I have no problem with the Somalia thing and I deleted once because the IP who added it put a reference not an online reference and also he put it in Socotra article and that was suspicious for me. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the Somali plate again because you mentioned POV again and that was the only issue you had raised prior to nomination for deletion. I accept that you no longer dispute this, which begs the question why you are persisting with this deletion nomination. You now say a problem is the article said "Socotra is initially located in Oman or something like that". What it actually said was "the island is geologically more closely related to the geology of Oman." This was cited (in a ref you deleted). You justified this above saying it was "suspicious" because the "reference not an online reference". Deleting references because you cannot read them is an outrageously disruptive thing to do, especially when the source is a high quality one from a scholarly journal – see Wikipedia:Offline sources for more information. Just for your information, here is a book source that plainly says Socrotra was rifted from Oman. You seem to be equating unsourced information (or even worse information that is in sources you can't read) with POV. This is not correct, these are two different issues. Unsourced does not mean it is unsourcable. Unsourced information is dealt with in the first instance by asking the editor concerned, raising the issue on the talk page, or by adding a citation needed tag. Unless it is obviously, or highly likely, wrong, the first move should rarely be removal. It certainly shouldn't be nomination of the page for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the nominator's query as to whether there are articles on the geology of non-independent places, a couple of examples are Geology of the Isle of Wight, Geology of Skye and Geology of Newfoundland and Labrador. AllyD (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad examples; The first one is a country the second one is created by the same user who is spamming articles. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Isle of Wight nor Skye are countries, and neither was created by User:Zircon 2. SpinningSpark 23:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention all the articles listed at Template:Geology of the United States by political division, which includes many US islands. Similar situation with Russia, although there is not a convenient template listing them all, but Yenisey Fold Belt is just one example. SpinningSpark 21:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also bad examples these are states and territories that were independent. Anyway I will create tons of articles and I have already started writing articles about tons and tons of islands and let's see if that's going to pass--SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can create well-sourced, tightly-focused geology articles, I don't see a problem with that. If you're intending to just mass-produce stubs to prove a point, I don't think you'll find the ultimate result particularly satisfying. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is no reason this article needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "best islands in the world according to google"? this probably relates to the most searched/most popular, anyway, everybody knows that tassie (Go, the apple isle!) is the best island in the world ... excuse me coola is your pov showing? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we have reached WP:BLUD. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Apparently everybody is against the nomination and it doesn't seem that it's going to be deleted. I have a different opinion about this article and I think I might be wrong. --SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plain folks

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

Lying dormant since 2007, this term - while ostensibly portraying a real phenomenon used in politics which I won't deny - only has one source and is worded like a sturdy coined phrase instead of a spurious neologism. If this "fallacy" has a name, it woukd have many and "Plain folks" isn't it. Anyway, it has one source and seems to fail WP:GNG right now. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I’m gonna say keep only because there are in fact reliable sources on this common phenomenon such as New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, and TIME (as recently as 2016). Article can be expanded and done correctly.Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If such sources exist, provide link(s) here or add them directly to the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was too lazy to do so initially but here are examples: New York Times, CBS, TIME, for a about most of the decade, specifically in the 2012 election, Obama has been known to do it but I don’t think it was necessarily a plain folks technique in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, those are all just passing mentions of the phrase, or asserting that a certain person has that attribute. None of them pass muster as in-depth discussion of the concept as required by GNG. SpinningSpark 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to commoner, which is a larger article about the concept meant by this title. The stuff about politicians posing as common folk is covered elsewhere under more accurate titles such as demagogue#Folksy_posturing. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Trillfendi (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Nice topic for Logic. Good for wiki philosophers. But the topic needs to be developed the more.Mgbo120 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Propaganda_techniques#Common man (anchor needed), which links commoner in the header. It's rather duplicative of that section, and the fallacy is covered at Argument from authority#Appeal to non-authorities. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jennings (musician)

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

Poorly sourced, promotional BLP that includes unsubstantiated claims of reviews (for which I can find no evidence of existence), appearances, and performances with notable bands. The main contributors are two SPA's (DrumDivot and Nuthousecat), and an IP who claims to be the subject has also made a substantial edit that added some promotional fluff while removing allegedly false information. (In his only edit, a user named Cajonman also attempted to add promotional text about Jennings' website, playcajon.org.) No proper claim to WP:MUSICBIO (appearances in TED conferences don't seem to count) and no significant coverage found about him or playcajon.org. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No in-depth reliable sources found: much of the "History" section is copyvio from the subject's website. The reviews in the New York Times, Boston Globe and Globe and Mail are just passing mentions of Mr. Jennings playing as a backing musician for the dancer James Devine [36], [37], [38]... this show was also the "sell-out run on Broadway" mentioned in the article, so none of these reviews are about Mr. Jennings himself. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG at the moment. Maybe later. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Kulikov (actor)

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

A naughty Soviet actor with little roles and no titles and awards.--RTY9099 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking at the Russian wiki page I am going to go with keep, there are two honours in his infobox and he has done a fair amount of work. WP:BEFORE anyone!? Govvy (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Russian version doesn’t help its case as the source is a dead link. No reliable sources could be found.Trillfendi (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userify. Requires more updating with factual infoMgbo120 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A translation of Google search results for "Заслуженный артист РСФСР Куликов" (Honored Artist of the RSFSR Kulikov) make it pretty clear he was awarded that distinction in 1967, which meets some standard of reliable sources (in a foreign language) and notability (in former Soviet sphere, long ago and far away). That's enough for me, but I could see the opposite view. --Lockley (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Unfortunately, this debate suffered from a lack of participation. No prejudice against renominating in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samakkhi Prathet Thai

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

A non-notable music album.--RTY9099 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An in-depth coverage of the album [39] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Its release was over a decade ago, so sources will be hard to identify. The album has been reviewed by Manager (linked above), which suggests to me that the album would likely also have been covered by other reliable sources as well. "Khwan Thai Chai Nueng Diao" (which was also released as a single preceding the album), in particular, was also widely covered for its effort to counter the South Thailand insurgency.[40][41][42] The album and several of its songs are included in a multitude of dissertations analysing the band's works.[43][44][45][46][47] --Paul_012 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KPBS Public Media

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

Fails WP:ORG; the radio and TV stations are notable by themselves. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid disambiguation page of the organization's properties. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. Requires more updating. Not yet encyclopedic.Mgbo120 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a parent organization for KPBS-TV and KPBS-FM. Some decisions common to both media outlets, like news programming, are better suited to be placed into the parent page. Mikus (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only one article needs a hatnote to the other two, and it already has it. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three ambiguous articles, one of which is the WP:PTOPIC. A disambiguation page is preferred to a long hatnote. feminist (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is one primary topic, one secondary topic and one topic with a different title which could be confused with this one. wumbolo ^^^ 06:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that GamersGate currently links to this disambiguation page. feminist (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The hatnote can be replaced with {{distinguish|Gamergate (biology)|Gamergate controversy}}. wumbolo ^^^ 11:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to only have to update one disambiguation page than to have to update two hatnotes. feminist (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

feminist has a point. It's only a matter of time before we also have "Gamergate (book)" and "Gamergate (documentary)". A disambig page is the best solution. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 10:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is not the best solution. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Feminist. I also added another entry, an episode with a guest star plyaing a fictional character with the surname Gamergate, which is another valid entry. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hatnote can easily suffice for this topic, there does not seem to be a need for a separate disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, GamersGate is not something that requires disambiguation, so you really only have the ant and the controversy and an extremely minor, crufty character. I can picture a dual hatnote like "This article is about the species of ant. For the controversy, see Gamergate controversy. Not to be confused with GamersGate."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - All relevant stuff to disambig. FOARP (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly means more than a controversial topic surrounding gamers. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters

AfDs for this article:

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

Only 1 reference and 35 characters listed. Anything relevant can be moved to other articles. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 04:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN; any worthwhile content can be merged to the main article Spiderone 11:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a typical split-off article from a notable television series article, so insisting on the notability of the characters as a group apart from the series is missing the point, if not nonsensical. Obviously the characters of a series need to be described in order to have comprehensive coverage of that series, so the only options are to keep as a stand-alone list or to merge to the series article, not to delete outright. It's clearly too long for The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy to incorporate it (even if the entire recurring or supporting characters sections were removed), so stand-alone it is. postdlf (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has room for improvement. Merging it with the main article would make that page run on too long and lack cohesion.Trillfendi (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this is sourced to a single book? That contains one passing mention of one of these characters? Maybe it's just me, but I see no claim to notability, and all this extensive text, laden with OR and fancruft, justified by that one cited source, seems ludicrous. --Lockley (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The TV series is clearly notable, and this list of characters is too long to include in the article about the series. I have found some sources for the characters, though not, in my online searches, a complete list. This article 'Midway Battles Its Way into Retail with Release of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy(TM) Video Game; One of Cartoon Network's Top-Rated Shows Comes to Game Systems' on Business Wire [48] refers to 15 characters that appear in the videogame based on the series (it names Grim, Billy, Mandy, Hoss Delgado and Fred Fredburger). This review of the video game 'Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (Game Boy Advance) - Review' [49] also says you can choose one of 15 characters - apart from the 3 main ones, I think it only mentions Toadblatt. This article 'Designing Meaning with Multiple Media Sources: A Case Study of an Eight-Year-Old Student's Writing Processes' in Research in the Teaching of English Vol. 41, No. 4 (May, 2007), describes a child's writing and the teacher asking about where the idea for the characters came from (mentions the main characters and Mr Snuggles, Granny and Screamy Meamy). The book Dracula in Visual Media: Film, Television, Comic Book and Electronic Game Appearances, 1921–2010 [50] includes summaries of two episodes of Grim & Evil, the precursor of The Grim Adventures ..., and the characters in them, including Dracula, of course. There were also toys and figurines made, which are now collectable. I have not searched under the name of the series in other languages - that might well bring up other sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Opinion on this one are all over the board and I do not believe another relisting is likely to result in consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 in photo

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

Not enclycpedic, similar articles should also be considered. This was raised on #wikipedia-en IRC today. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By similar articles, I mean any Year in xxx article. If a wider RfC would be better, please let me know and proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC is not a valid or substantive argument. And I can't tell if your objection is specific to this page (please elaborate if that's the case), or to the mere fact of a "[year] in [subject]" page...if the latter, please don't waste our time. postdlf (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not encyclopedic is to this article but at this point in the year certainly for this year, I don't see 2019 in XXX articles being of much use as not much will have actually happened to be notable.
- For previous years, I believe we need to establish whether they provide any substantial benefit to the encyclopedia and even whether a category could replace them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would be the point of deleting lists that are necessarily going to be expanded as the year progresses? And re: categories, see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per postdlf --Patriccck (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing much useful about this article, it just appears to be a calendar of routine events or photo awards. Only a few of them are notable and have dates attached. Consider nominating 2018 in photo as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: ATM just a calendar of events, no notability shown for most of it. There should be a limit before these articles can be created. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Should an RfC be started on the general need for calendar of events style articles? RhinosF1 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only real question is whether a particular topic merits one, not whether we should be doing it at all. Note also that I have struck your "delete" !vote above because you've already weighed in as the nominator, and using that formatting in a subsequent comment looks at first glance like separate support. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic shown no notability for a list. As has been pointed out the 2018 in photo article doesn't either. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Patriccck (the creator): What's this page supposed to be about: 2019 in photo(graph)s (plural), or 2019 in photography? -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoary: Thanks for question, 2019 in photography (in photography art, science), like on Czech Wikipedia --Patriccck (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page appears to have been put together with particular laziness. It derives indirectly from (French) fr:2019 en photographie (by Polmars), a list that itself is pretty unexciting but does at least link to actual (fr:WP) articles on prizes. This Englished version instead has links to articles (in en:WP) on the French names for those same prizes. Surprise surprise, they're red. A bit of extra work would have found the names in en:WP for the same prizes. (A few minutes ago, I made the needed changes for just two of these awards, to show the way. For awards that don't have articles in en.WP but do have articles in other Wikipedias, the Illm template could be used.) Each award has a flag icon, but the awards don't represent their nations; see WP:FLAGCRUFT. I'd be happy if there were a thoughtfully and energetically compiled article for each year in photography, but this article is just lazy. If somebody lacks the time or effort needed to create an article that goes some way toward being helpful, then that person shouldn't create the article at all -- is my belief, but it's not en:WP policy. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but to say that the implementation is half-baked would be generous. Therefore, together with 2018 in photo, move to draft space. There, rename both drafts to "[year] in photography", improve them (aiming for accuracy and helpfulness rather than comprehensiveness), and work on Draft:2017 in photography (yes, 2017). When both this and Draft:2018 in photography have reached an informative and helpful state, ask to have them promoted to article space. No earlier than July, ask to have the greatly improved Draft:2019 in photography moved there too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the creator. Patriccck, this article would probably get a lot more sympathy from people (such as me) who think it's potentially worthwhile and perhaps also from people who (so far) don't think so, if you'd take the trouble to improve it. My own minor edit three days ago is the most recent. You've found enough spare time to edit cz:WP; how about editing this article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoary, what should I improve in the article? Btw. Czech Wikipedia doesn't czwiki, but cswiki. --Patriccck (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I think of "cs" as Czechoslovakia and avoid it. A silly mistake. ¶ Please see this edit, in which I changed red links to article titles in French to blue links to article titles in English. Go to fr:2019 en photographie, click on the blue links from it, and look in those pages for the titles of the English equivalents. That's how you'll find that fr:Prix Niépce is Niépce Prize. Replace the French name with the English one. By contrast, fr:Prix HSBC pour la photographie doesn't have an English equivalent. This English-language page of HSBC's shows that, surprisingly, the name even within English-language contexts is still "Prix HSBC pour la Photographie". Look at the bottom left of the French-language Wikipedia page for "Modifier les liens". This goes to Wikidata item Q3404784. So you provide the link "{{Illm|Prix HSBC pour la Photographie|WD=Q3404784}}". This will point to the Wikidata item as long as there is no English-language page. When there is an English-language page, the link will point to this page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No change. It seems that when I wrote the comment immediately above, I was just wasting my time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We’re only 17 days into the year for crying out loud. What notable achievements in photography have been done yet for an encyclopedic article? Let alone an accurate one. None. WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hey! why isnt the walkleys in the article? thats better, just added it (at the top of the awards list as oz comes before france:)), do agree, though, that this article is possibly too soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's content and this type of article is a generally-accepted part of Wikipedia's navigational structure. If you really feel otherwise, you'll probably need an RFC and then some AFDs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks: "Ha ha. power~enwiki must be kidding." Takes a look. Thinks again: "Holy fuck, power~enwiki is right." And some of what can be found there are labours of love, one might say. Take for example the lavishly referenced List of Bollywood films of 2019. Impressive, until one notices the nature of the references (twitter-twitter). Ah well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There is consensus that this specific topic isn't notable. If anyone wants to develop this towards a merger into Crime in Vatican City, or into a new article about Catholicism and cannabis, I would be happy to provide a draft in userspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis in Vatican City

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

The article has six sources, but four are about the position of the Catholic Church (and Popes) on cannabis and one is about Italy. That leaves us with cannabis.info, which simply states that cannabis is illegal in Vatican City.

Altogether this is not the significant coverage we need for WP:GNG. It's clear that some hard work has gone into the article, which covers Catholic positions on cannabis, but that's not the article subject. Speculation on arable land or the country's only pharmacy is not particularly encyclopedic. Most fundamentally for AfD, I cannot find any useful sources which demonstrate notability of the topic. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C Abstain - I won't vote either way as its my article, but I wou like for like to point out that there's articles for every country and its relationship to weed, see legality of cannabis. This case, as it always seems to be with me though recently, is sui generis as the Vatican City State is irrevocably tied to the Holy See per se and its history as the Papal States, and we'll the article is rather self explanatory....I see no reason why this would be deleted and it would be a sore disappointment. I believe it provides a great deal of info and use, for example a cheeky tourist who thinks he can circumvent being arrested for smoking weed in the Italian Republic by visiting the Vatican. Or dorks like me.-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well indeed their histories are linked, but the matter of law and decree is just one small area. Perhaps there are some others in the series that I think should be deleted, but this was the most obvious outlier to me. What the notable members of this series, such as Cannabis in the United Kingdom, have that this article does not is a history of substantial production and usage. Even some sub-stubs such as Cannabis in Réunion document substantial recreational and ritual use of the drug, whereas in Vatican City there's no evidence provided that anyone has ever used the substance there. (Though as you say, I'm sure there's been the occasional tourist who endeavours to smoke weed on her trip to the state.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I forgot to mention this article was also peer-reviewed by @KJP1:, whose good advice I admittedly haven't implemented yet out of sloth, but he seemed to approve of the concept, if this is worth anything.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Retitle Perhaps its time the redirect Catholicism and cannabis became its own article, and then when in a few years or whenever the article can be changed back to its current title? ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
L3X1,A merge would certainly be interesting, but the problem I thought about when I created the article is that the Vatican City State is just as sovereign as China is, and I think not treating it like other countries while acknowledging and connecting its special status violates NPOV.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having articles "X in [country]" for only some values of [country] is not related to NPOV at all. It's related to GNG. For instance, contrast Scientology in Belgium with (non-existent, non-notable) Scientology in North Korea. The difference is that there is a substantial Scientology following in the former country, but not the latter. Trying to complete the series would be a fool's errand. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Bilorv said. Normally I see NPOV used as argument against this type of thing, but I agree it isn't the issue. I think for the current title, the article could only have the lede/lead portion, but if we rename it, the entire article would be appropriate. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any ideas what would be a good title for the entire subject of the article, as you think would fit?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism and cannabis or Cannabis and Catholicism (whichever the MOS:TITLE people deem to be proper) or perhaps Catholic Views on Cannabis, but I feel one of the first two would be better, as it encompasses the current contents, A lead, dogma, and history. ^Thanks, and have a Happy 2019! ^fromL3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, although if I would need to merge it I don't know much about that and would probably butcher it. So far I would settle for that.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not convinced that Catholicism and cannabis is notable either. But Christianity and cannabis would be, and for the time being perhaps the material is best put in Cannabis and religion#Catholicism. I would think that this title should be deleted rather than redirected there though, as it is an implausible search target for the latter information. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little averse to just throwing it into Christianity and cannabis/Cannabis and religion, as porting the contents of Cannabis in Vatican City in there would be bulky. ^Thanks, and have a Happy 2019! ^fromL3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be trimming the bits that are only about Vatican City. As the second largest religious denomination after Sunni Islam, Catholicism is entitled to a fair share of Cannabis and religion article with its 1.3 billion adherents. If it is to be a separate article, certainly Christianity and cannabis should be created before the subtopic Catholicism and cannabis. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how weed being illegal in Vatican City isn't notable. The city-state is inherently and essentially tied to the Holy See itself, so it deserves coverage. It's more than notable, millions of people visit the Vatican every year, at least some of whom have tried or want to know about weed and its relationship with the Papacy.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just speculation. The objective criterion we use is WP:GNG and it is not met here. Burden of proof lies on those wishing to show it is notable. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If your claim were consistent, a LOT of the Cannabis in X country articles would need to be deleted. Is marijuana policy in Vatican City really not as notable as the articles for San Marino, Sao Tome e Principe, the Cook Islands, New Caledonia (now we're just getting into dependent territories, not sovereign nations) and other tiny lands? What you're proposing ought to imply a large-reaching reform and decision about weed-related articles, not just knock off a few individual ones.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, Perhaps there are some others in the series that I think should be deleted. Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale here, but feel free to nominate any pages for deletion yourself after evaluating them according to WP:BEFORE (as I did here, but don't have time to do on 200 pages). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be far better for the site if you're correct, to try to enact a general change in policy concerning weed-related articles instead of pruning individual ones like this? I don't think OSE applies here necessarily, because in this case A LOT of other stuff exists to the extent it becomes a rule. I don't know what makes Vatican City so special a target.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no point making a policy for such a small set of articles (a couple of hundred). There's no need, because our current policies cover it already—specifically WP:GNG, which you continue not to mention. I'll say again: I do not view Vatican City as a unique case, but as this is the third time I've made the point, I won't continue to harp on about it any further. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your sharpshooting strategy here is very bizarre. I must say. Regardless, I can only settle on merging with most of the content remaining intact.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness: my opening comment at PR was "I initially thought this a rather odd topic for an article". While noting it formed part of a series, I also remarked that "the History section looks patchy. 1484 and then nothing until 1929". I think Bilorv has a valid point. If there's really nothing worth noting about cannabis use in The Vatican, or any specific state, then it is questionable as to whether an article on the topic is warranted. Another suggestion might be a section within the article, Cannabis in Italy. KJP1 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thank you for your comment! Do you believe then, if by your suggestion the Vatican should be merged into the Italy article, should the same apply for its sister microstate by Cannabis in San Marino, which is also scant in content?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, but I've not read it. Have you read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? KJP1 (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes right, I was linked it earlier today. Cannabis in San Marino though the article is like stub length so check it out.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new cannabis section in Crime in Vatican City, and add a single sentence regarding canabis' illegality to Vatican City#Crime. Doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a content fork. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i am confused by one of the article creator's initial statements - "there's articles for every country and its relationship to weed, see legality of cannabis.", i count 22 countries/territories in that article that are redlinked so, no, WP does not have a canabis article for every country. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, agree with the nominator that the article does not have enough appropriate sources (ie. actually about this specific subject) to warrant a standalone (i have been unable to find any and none have been forthcoming), although the above suggestions about merging/adding some info to various articles are possible, i believe this to be inappropriate as it would place too much emphasis on this issue in those articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Chanaratsopon

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

Fails WP:GNG JC7V (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete general notability guidelines requires multiple sources, which are not present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. No sources cited. Poorly written as wellMgbo120 (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as page only has 1 source and does not meet notability guidelines --Sau226 (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No cites and clear WP:BLP violation. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016 lunar eclipse

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

NASA removed this eclipse from the website, also not much media report this eclipse B dash (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Keep. This is sort of the astronomy version of a WP:CRYSTAL cautionary tale. Eclipse models suggested that there would be an August 2016 event that would just barely count as an eclipse: about 18 minutes of penumbral shadow time (normally, even very short penumbral lunar eclipses are more like an hour in duration). At one point, NASA listed the event in their database, and there was a little bit of news coverage. Except, upon review, NASA determined that the model was wrong. The calculations for these eclipses are subject to periodic refinement, as is the understanding of the shape and size of Earth's shadow. The moon didn't barely graze Earth's shadow; it barely missed instead. Accordingly, this event was removed from the database, and the previous event in Lunar Saros 109 was declared to be the endpoint of that series. There was an even tinier bit of coverage of that. I'm inclined to think that this can just be deleted. But I'm open to the suggestion that it received sufficient attention to be notable as a predicted event, even if that event did not actually occur. Several related articles will still need tidied up in any case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a pretty interesting article could actually be written about this based on those two sources. FOARP (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, peer pressure. I've found some actual academic discussion of what happened here. I'll try to get a revision up either tomorrow or Monday. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten, citing a small collection of NASA publications for an explanation of the change, along with the web coverage. There's probably still some cleanup to do involving related pages, but I'm actually surprisingly happy with the result here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. An example of a really productive AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with FOARP, this is a notable failure of prediction of what is usually thought of as something as predictable as clockwork. Although the coverage is minimal, it is enough for our purposes. SpinningSpark 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its one of those boundary cases that depends on definitions that shift slightly, but still fits within the eclipse cycles, and useful to explain an event that didn't actually happen if anyone wonders. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is verifiable. It also appears tenable for the scientific wiki community. Mgbo120 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Everyone. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – still a notable celestial event that gained attention worldwide. It was one of the few notable inaccuracies in solar models in recent modern history. Passes GNG and is verifiable. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. I am closing these as "keep", but without prejudice to taking individual articles to AfD again if there seems sufficient reason to doubt their notability. Bundling these articles here made it very difficult for participants in the debate (and the closer) to judge notability/consensus. Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dewi Driegen

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

Proposing this NMODEL page and for the sake of brevity, other pages below along with it which all have the same problem in common. No verifiability for its bold claims about their respective careers. No reliable sources found or sometimes pure gossip. Really no sources besides modeling agency listings and directories.

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

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

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL [User talk:Trillfendi|talk) 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can we possibly assess all of these articles in one AfD? I'm not sure what the same problem they have in common is supposed to be - on a quick look at several, some are sourced only to Models.com, some don't have that as a source and have other sources instead, including magazine articles which need to be assessed for WP:RS .... Please relist separately, so they can each be assessed on their own merits. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed in seeing the only one sourced to a defunct online publication which had virtually nothing to do with her career it’d be easy to see why it was proposed with the others. But I guess that’ll have to be a two part-er. So I’ve trimmed it back down to these.Trillfendi (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your style. I've seen AFDs with more bundled but usually not ones about notability, unless they're all stubs made by the same user. I'd advise nom to keep this open but unlink the bundled ones and just nominate them individually to avoid WP:TRAINWRECK. SITH (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references cited. Fails WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the nominator is finally done altering the list of nominated articles, perhaps they could finish the nomination process by adding the proper templates to all of the nominated articles bundled in this nomination? See Template:Afd footer (multiple). Bakazaka (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazily, I assumed it’d all lump together by itself but I’ve now sorted it out. Trillfendi (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Re Dewi Driegen: Vogue has a profile of her on The Vogue List. [51] I presume that this is a WP:RS, as Vogue magazine is? Also, what about model profiles on New York Magazine? [52] RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Fabiana Semprebom, sources WP:NEXIST: a Google Books search shows snippet views of the following:

Para Ti (2007) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "She was only 14 years old when a booker from the agency Ten discovered her walking the streets of San Pablo, Brazil "When she saw me, she proposed to take part in a contest and I won." More is visible in the snippet view [53]
Veja Rio (2010) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Retirement in half With a curriculum that includes campaigns for brands such as Dolce & Gabbana and Victoria's Secret, the model Fabiana Semperebom inaugurated the fashionable "half-retired"." (Snippet view shows nothing, unfortunately.)
Veja (2007) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "The four cited as most promising are now guaranteed presence in the fashion circuit: Isabeli Fontana, Mariana Weickert, Fabiana Semperbom and Katarina Scola. Months later, Gisele Bündchen, who already shone on the fashion circuit, ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
Manchete (1999) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Fabiana Semperbom, one of the stars of the last Morumbi Fashion, came to her hands through an excursion from Maringá, Paraná. Years ago, when Panthera left his international career to return to Brazil, he was .." (Snippet view shows a small part of 4 columns, not possible to see if there's more about Fabiana.)
O Brasil na moda: backstage - Volume 2 (2003) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Later they would join the group Mariana Weickert, Talytha Pugliesi, Carolina Bittencourt, Ana Beatriz Barros, Vanessa Greca, Marcelle Bittar, Jeza Chiminazo, Raica, Fabiana Semperbom and Luciana Curtis. They dominated the scene in the two ..." (Snippet view shows a bit more, hard to see if there's more about Fabiana.)

That looks to me as if enough coverage does exist, verifying that she has appeared in the shows the article says she has (and that could verify some content previously deleted for lack of sourcing, such as walking for Victoria's Secret), but it is not easily found online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Danita Angell, I found a bit less, and some of what I have found will, I am sure, not be considered WP:RS because they are original magazines for sale on ecommerce sites, or scanned and posted on blogs. However, they do verify some of the content.

Harper's Bazaar, December 1999, Millennium IT list [54]
Vogue Italia, December 1999, inside [55]
Vogue Italia cover, January 2000 [56] (about the 8th post down, or search for Danita).
New York Times Magazine - photographed in the Doris Duke home, February 2001 [57]
New York Times Magazine - photographed in the Mark Twain House in October 2001 - a newspaper article about it in the Hartford Courant [58], and the NYT slideshow of the photos [59]
New York Times Magazine (2000) - another scene [60] RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Fernanda Tavares, here are some things I found:

Elle, Volume 20, Issues 5-7, 2005, text visible in the google search result says "HEAVENLY CREATURES Brazilians such as the amply curvaceous Caroline Ribeiro, Fernanda Tavares, and (official spokeswoman for the push-up bra) Gisele Biindchen have dominated the catwalk in recent years. However, a new ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
Allure - Volume 13, Issues 5-8 - Page 56, 2003 - text visible in the google search result says "Versace Intensive Revitalizing eye masks were a hit with the show's makeup artists, who smoothed the cooling gel patches under the eyes of models such as and Karolina Kurkova, Fernanda Tavares, Amber Valletta before applying black ..." (Snippet view shows nothing relevant.)
Travel & Leisure - Volume 30 - Page 131, 2000 - text visible in the google search result says "STYLE/brazil Backstage, 19-year-old Fernanda Tavares—the world's number- two model—is getting her tresses blown out and leading the other models in a sing-along. Fernanda adores Brazilian clothes. On her feet are S2 Haviana flip-flops." Some is visible in snippet view [61], but not enough to see who she was modelling for.
A mulher potiguar: cinco séculos de presença - Page 1 - 2000 - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "In June of this year the beautiful potiguar Fernanda Tavares, of 17 years, pierced the blockade. It is no coincidence that she has been highlighted as the top of the Brazilian tops in the international fashion circuit. "At 20, Fernanda Tavares continues ..." Some is visible in snippet view, on three pages, but not enough to see what it says. [62]
Veja - Issues 1-4 - Page 118, 2005, - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "While a constellation of models ran from one show to another in the MAM, top Fernanda Tavares was circulating around the city, oblivious to the excitement of Fashion Rio. Fernanda spent the week recording four special summer episodes ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
An article about Dolce & Gabbana in The Australian Financial Review in November 2018 [63] includes a photo from 2002 of Fernanda Tavares with Dolce, Gabbana, Gisele Bundchen, Esther Canadas, and Naomi Campbell at the unveiling of the Dolce & Gabbana men's fashion collection for the Spring/Summer 2003, in Milan.
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, 2015, has 'Yu (Tsai) and Me: Fernanda Tavares' [64] It says, "Fernanda first appeared in SI Swimsuit in 2001 and has been a legend ever since. Over the years, her work with photographers James Porto, Terry Richardson, Enrique Badulescu and Jr. Duran stunned readers and left a lasting impression on her career. She has also worked as a runway and commercial model with top-tier labels like Chanel, Prada, Ralph Lauren and Louis Vuitton—just to name a few. And with a successful MTV show in Brazil and a friendship with the wife of NFL football super star Tom Brady, we think it's safe to say Fernanda and her unwavering beauty aren't going anywhere anytime soon!"
There is coverage of her with her husband Murilo Rosa, for verification of the Personal life section. [65]

That looks like sustained coverage to me, and provides verification of some of the significant work she has done. I have not yet searched on her name and the brand names to find sources for each of them - probably more could be found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Marcelle Bittar:

Alexander McQueen: Evolution [66] - Alexander McQueen Spring/Summer 2003.
O Brasil na moda: backstage, Volume 2 2003. Same as Fabiana Semprebom - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Later they would join the group Mariana Weickert, Talytha Pugliesi, Carolina Bittencourt, Ana Beatriz Barros, Vanessa Greca, Marcelle Bittar, Jeza Chiminazo, Raica, Fabiana Semperbom and Luciana Curtis. They dominated the scene in the two ..." (Snippet view shows a bit more, her name is one two pages.)
Veja - Issues 1-4 - Page 8, 2008 - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Marcelle Bittar, model, and now host of a TV show, wisely avoiding the turmoil "In my time, they corrected us." Isabel Fillardis, on the models that are shaking the head Gisele: balancing ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
There's also plenty of current news coverage about her, in Portuguese - [67], including this [68] which indicates that as of January 2016, she was still working. It says, in rough translation, "With 16 years of brilliant trajectory on the runways, Marcelle Bittar (33) has plenty of reasons to celebrate. Recognized by the four corners of the world and in the list of the most requested tops of the fashion scene, Paraná says that fashion was responsible for major changes in her life. "The contact with different cultures, the trips, the responsibilities still in the adolescence, the challenges and the difficulties that I had to face in the beginning of the race, all this made me mature. Today, I have more peace of mind to make choices and manage my time better, "she points out during her stay at Nannai Resort & Spa, in the paradise of Porto de Galinhas, in Pernambuco. Without thinking about retirement, Marcelle gives tips to anyone who wants to enter the market. "There are a lot of girls betting on this career, which increases competition. Being persistent, determined, professional and responsible is what makes the model different, "teaches the beauty, proud of her deeds. "I never imagined getting where I came from. If I could, I would do it all again, but with the maturity I have today," she says.

Again, that looks like sustained coverage. I could search her name with brand names, to verify work she has done, but there is already more that could be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them. Sources WP:NEXIST, and I really wonder whether WP:BEFORE has been done: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". The articles do need more citations, but that is not a reason to bring them to AfD - "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I found were credible in my Before, from searching page after page after page of Google, including those from Google Books (sometimes nothing showed up at all...). If a model is a model, she would have sources in fashion magazines, not only some random coffee table books. One thing should be abundantly clear, NYMag’s defunct model profile directory is not enough for an article to stand upon. I can give a bunch of examples of non-notable models who have them too. Being in SI Swimsuit doesn’t automatically create notability, especially if other sources that aren’t SI itself can’t back it up. Being on a tv is not notability if we can’t get verification for it. The Vogue Paris thing I found for Driegen showed a 404 error.

That leaves the only one I can see keeping here: Fernanda Tavares. NEXIST should be NVERIFIABLE.Trillfendi (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I dug, and found the Vogue Paris article on the Wayback Machine. What on earth is wrong with being in a coffee table book? though only one of these sources could be called that anyway .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the 21st century, model’s careers are documented by magazines and the Internet. Being in the coffee table books isn’t wrong, duh, but if that’s the only source out there and the references don’t even work it makes no sense.Trillfendi (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as RebeccaGreen has found several supporting sources, there are more sources available in foreign-language media (esp. Portuguese), and the nomination seems to be founded on some basic misunderstandings about WP:N, searches, and sourcing. The fact that the multiple articles in this potential WP:TRAINWRECK are not actually related to each other, and aren't from the same page creator, doesn't help, nor does the nominator's multiple adjustments to the list of nominated subjects during an ongoing AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are “related” in that I found them on the same page, but that’s neither here nor there. None of them had any reliable sources, only relied on one unreliable source that didn’t explain careers, and when I at least attempted to find sources for them, nothing turned up. I’m not some archaeologist who can find books in people’s living rooms that might have some picture of somebody in it. I go by what can by the things that are concrete. My understanding of WP:N is outlined right there: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. How does that differ from any article in this database? Trillfendi (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all since sources exist.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason I nominated these is that just because sources “exist” out there, doesn’t mean they’re automatically reliable or even usable. Marcelle Bittar stands completely unreferenced. Dewi Driegen only has a models.com profile that doesn’t show anything the article says. Danita Angell has a dead link and a FashionModelDirectory profile. Fabiana Semprebom’s article has absolutely no information about her career and just a models.com profile. I said it at the jump, no sources are out there to even verify this information. Articles must have references that people can actually see and use. These picture books are not meant to support a whole article and should only be used as a last resort if that. If a model does Dior, for example, typically there is a magazine article, whether brief or a spotlight, that exhibits that. Trillfendi (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention in the previous comment the reason I nominated Ferndada Tavares was the only source I could find was from New York Post 15 years ago. Trillfendi (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Fabiana Semprebom, Danita Angell and Marcelle Bittar. Weak keep for Fernanda Tavares for her presence in Sports Illustrated [[69]]. My very low threshold due to the majority of the identified sources above being mentions or appearances in foreign language publications is a single media profile in English in a reliable source in the first ten pages of Google results. Besides standard directory listings on the New York Magazine site for Driegen [[70]] and Tavares [[71]], there's nothing else I saw that met this admittedly low bar. With no English biographical info to source from, all four fail WP:GNG, but Tavares just meets the WP:NMODEL carveout for the SI appearance. I'm unconvinced that the others' appearances in fashion magazines are notable enough to meet WP:NMODEL. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: WP:NONENG, which explicitly allows non-English sources, is policy. Bakazaka (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: sure, but if we have to use them in place of English sources, I expect foreign sources to also be reliable and in-depth - the same standard I'd use if they were all in English. The citations above are passing mentions or asides - I don't see any in-depth profiles of the models in any notable publications, foreign or otherwise. Which ones would you use to make your notability case(s)? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: For Fernanda Tavares, I'd probably start with some of the 150+ newspaper/periodical database hits (which of course excludes Fernanda Tavares the researcher). For Bittar I'd probably start with the international coverage of her actual fight with Naomi Campbell. For Semprebom I'd start with the Manchete coverage. If I was going to go through and prove NMODEL, I'd probably fetch the magazine references for the various covers, since magazines are reliable sources for their own contents, to verify the achievements listed in the articles. But since this is a WP:VOLUNTEER outfit and time and attention are precious, I'm happy to say "wow, that's a lot of sourcing that was pretty easily found, so let's tag these for improvement and move on". Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Tavares was a weak keep, so ultimately no real disagreement there. The other three are the ones in question. I'm not sure that being on the cover of a magazine is enough - if there's nothing else, and no reliable info exists with which to build a reasonable BLP. But if anything this has been a fun afd to research - moving on to less glamorous subjects. Cheers. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a field which is heavily dependent upon publicity, and it can be expected that all sources wil be contaminated by PR. We probably in field like this will have to find some othre basis of decision. I'm not familiar enough with the field to be the best person to devise one, bu tthe first question I'd ask is whether we are judging from those best known and most highly thought of within the profession (as we do with many special categories), or those best known to the general public. Read literally, the only applicable criterion for non-pornographic models in nMODEL is that they have a large fan base. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It's not always about the general public per se. Many, many, many models who have articles on this website are not household names at all yet have notability criteria in their respective ways. The way the industry trend is these days, Instagram followers are considered a "large fan base" (people like Gigi and Bella Hadid for example) but that doesn't warrant an article, of course. If anything it's just pure unmitigated trivia. On top of it being very mercurial in a lot of ways. If Instagram all of a sudden disappeared I'm sure they'd still have a career. Model Anna Ewers was titled "Model of the Year" for 2015 and she is known for not having "that many" followers compared to other supermodels. What is supposed to make a model's article is their work plus reliable sources. And the way I see it is if we shouldn't have to be digging 5ft to find sources, especially ones we can barely see. Defeats the purpose, really. Trillfendi (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Castellanos

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without explanation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Castellanos is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (particularly Honduran newspapers - example1, example2). I suspect the article may satisfy NFOOTBALL due to his appearances in the CONCACAF Champions League, but I would need to provide evidence that Motagua is a fully-pro outfit (and I don't have time at the moment). However, satisfying the GNG should be enough. Jogurney (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To note Jo, appearances in continental competition has to be between two clubs from FPL, not to clubs that are fully pro, so that wouldn't count in this instance. Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search of "Héctor Castellanos Motagua" brings up a ton of Honduran press, such as [72] discussing his potential move abroad and [73] quoting him on the security situation in the country. This is atypical coverage. He therefore passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avang Music}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damarea Crockett}}

Revision as of 17:45, 10 January 2019