Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:06, 13 January 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 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 delete. The article may now be redirected, if any editor wishes. Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live in the 21st Century

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

Whether you want to consider this an album or DVD (or both!), I believe it fails GNG. Mainly because I could find reviews of it in reliable sources. There is no points on ALBUM it would satisfy as well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom made by banned editor. Per WP:NMUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination was made before the ban, so it is still valid. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was created before the user was indefinitely blocked. As such, it remains a valid nomination; it is not some sort of attempt to circumvent the block.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ALBUM, no reviews in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus 09:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, information is worthy of inclusion, by famous band, which is a famous release as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band may be famous, but there is no indication that this release is famous, or that there are any reliable sources discussing it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quiet Riot#Videography, in the absence of any sources discussing this DVD. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Did all the normal checks and couldn't find sources. JACKonWIKIS (Talk•My edits) 17:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite !voting multiple times, those advocating to keep this have not demonstrated that the subject meets any of our guidelines for notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osadolor Nate Asemota

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

Apparently non-notable person. The draft has twice been declined for that reason, but the article creator thinks otherwise and has again moved it to mainspace. COI has been denied here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to thank User:Justlettersandnumbers for avoiding a move-war by not draftifying this page again and instead taking it to AFD.
Comment - This draft reads as if it was written with a conflict of interest. Since the author says that there is no conflict of interest, the good-faith assumption is just that it is non-neutral writing about a marginally notable person. Therefore:
Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was return to mainspace because the initial issue which is copyright was Resolved under the Wikipedia Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License and GNU Free Documentation License. and lifted from the page, meanwhile possible measure is taking by modification and improving the page hence I seek that the page should not be deleted instead needs help on effecting the possible changes to qualify it.Amosflash (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject would appear to be more commonly known as "Dr Dolor":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Phil Bridger, the birthname was used to create the page as Osadolor Nate Asemota, instead of Dr dolor that is more commonly known, but though I was thinking a redirect from the latter would help. I seek the article to be kept as the subject is notable, there is an biography of a living person that is link to the "Dr dolor" which Is also a notable person Teni (entertainer), this is enough evidence that the subject does not belong to non notable person as proposed by Justlettersandnumbers, I feel improving on the page should be considered instead of deletion.Amosflash (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had also searched and there are reliable sources i found on the subject notability and going through the editing history, its obvious that the author is improving on the page thereby effecting the proposed conflict of interest, I feel keeping the page is the best for the case. Thank you!Jacwizy (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacwizy, Amosflash, could you please clarify whether there is some connection between you? I notice that both when Amosflash created this page and when Jacwizy created Ada Ehi, the other showed up within an hour or so; at Dorcas Shola-Fapson the interval was more than 24 hours. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also both edited Shuga (season 3): Shuga Naija within a few minutes of each other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have any physical or virtual connection, it might be either coincidental or might have some pages on watchlist, either of the latter I have no idea, and I've seen an admin edit my several created pages simultaneously.Amosflash (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ i have edited the article, as it is now, proper sources have been made, with the writing skill to avoid conflict of interest thereby effecting the proposed changes.Amosflash (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

struck duplicate vote. Nightfury 12:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rv close by myself, as asked by Justlettersandnumbers - Overlooked dupe vote. As an aside if an editor does also have a concern about another voter, they need to say so otherwise this may be overlooked by an uninvolved closer. Thanking you
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks are due to Nightfury for reopening this. I'm having serious doubts regarding the sources provided, which I suspect in no way qualify as reliable or particularly in-depth or even independent as required by the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO: they appear to be almost exclusively blogs and social media outlets. I'm sure Bishonen would agree it's times like this we more than ever miss Oluwa2Chainz... ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the author obviously makes all efforts to improve the article, which should be applauded, effort alone does unfortunately not qualify an article for the English Wikipedia. I can't give a fully confident vote, as I know little about the quality / category of Nigerian newspapers / websites, but my initial search any any following search hasn't turned up any results (including for "Dr. Dolor"). Sources are mostly blog entries, as already mentioned, and seem to have been written very close to the subject. And even if they, or some of them, were verifyable and reliable, they all seem to not establish notability in either case. --Ruhri Jörg 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ based on your my initial search there is reliable sources revealing the subject for establishing a platform that aids Teni (entertainer) which Is also a notable person, thats a clear proof, and on alleging that the blog was seems very close to the subject, I will tell you that this newspapers organization works with professional writer that understand the element of misinformation or writing in self interest as ill to the society, I believe their reports meet the standard of the organization as verifiable entity.Ruhri Jörg your contribution is welcome as we all are working hard to make Wikipedia better, I also suggest that you have little or not knowledgeable in the subject being discussed.Amosflash (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amosflash: That is the third time you have !voted. You only have one; please don't do that again. ——SerialNumber54129 15:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, its obvious that the subject is better know as Dr Dolor and has few reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaizenify (talk • contribs)

Delete. The subject hasn't done enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The references in the article or online do not show his career being discussed extensively. As a matter of fact, the subject has only released two or three non-notable singles. Being affliated with a notable artist doesn't make one notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer R. Niebyl

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

WP:BLP of a physician and medical writer, not properly sourced to any evidence that she passes our notability standards for physicians or writers. As always, the notability test for people is not just the ability to nominally verify that they and their work exist, but the references here are exclusively to her own primary source profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, however, what she needs is reliable source coverage in media sources that are independent of her, which haven't been shown here at all — people get Wikipedia articles by having media do journalism about them, not by having staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)" as an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, formerly the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, as stated in the article. She would also meet other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, but she only needs one. I have found and added a biography published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as part of their Giants in Obstetrics and Gynecology Series. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF as argued above. (I am not convinced that the organizations of which she is past president [1] or Fellow [2] are "major" enough/sufficiently exclusive about who they make Fellows to count, but they are at least in the "eh, doesn't hurt" category.) The underlying theme of that guideline is that scholars and academics can be noteworthy through their work even without gobs of media coverage, which seems to be the case here. The article could stand a good de-CV-ization, but I don't think it warrants deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she may actually meet WP:PROF #1. 1 and 2 referenced in the article are independent RS which refer to her as a "giant" or "legend" in her field. Not sure on citation rates in her field, but she's first or second author on several papers or books which have a couple hundred citations each. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 19:56, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional hardball

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

I Prod'ed this as WP:NOTDICT; the tag was removed with the irrelevant rationale; 'meets notabity guidelines'. It is still a dictionary definition, and I believe that the underlying principle is way older than 2004, as claimed. TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including academic source; concept has gotten attention in political science and law scholarship. Neutrality^talk 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination rationale. This is a definition of a term.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)≤[reply]

No, it's an explanation of a concept. This is not a dictionary definition any more than our articles on (to take a few random examples) procedural democracy, political mobilization, rule of law, etc. are dictionary definitions. Neutrality^talk 16:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - much like the page Whataboutism, this is a slogan. I agree it seems likely that this combination of words has been used in history classrooms for years to describe in particular court-packing. This usage note deserves a wiktionary page. The text in the article is good, it deserves to be kept. Should it be merged to a larger article (Constitutional Crisis#Tactics, for example), or should it feed the google knowledge engine an infobox and blurb? I don't know. Others will perhaps have stronger opinions. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the article is named after a buzzword (which is probably a non-notable neologism). The general topic regarding political norms in the United States is surely notable. I don't see a good merge target, so perhaps this should be renamed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My gut said "delete," but after looking around a bit, this seems to be a thing:
- Tushnet, Mark V. (2004). "Constitutional Hardball". The John Marshall Law Review. ISSN 0270-854X.
- Balkin, Jack (2008). "Constitutional Hardball and Constitutional Crises". Faculty Scholarship Series.
- Bernstein, David E. (2018). "Constitutional Hardball Yes, Asymmetric Not so Much". Social Science Research Network. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Fishkin, Joseph; Pozen, David E. (2018). "Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball". Columbia Law Review. 118 (3).

The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like WP:BEFORE has not been performed, a quick look in Google Books shows plenty of sources [3], ditto in Google Scholar - [4]. Should easily pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. Keeping it will be wise also.

If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link and Scholar, you will find a whole library full of books and scholarly articles dealing with this subject. And this is also regularly part of the discourse in common news sources. These are at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.

Exceeds WP:GNG. Already way more than a dictionary definition.

It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.

No doubt the article and sourcing can be improved. But that is part of the normal editing process, and no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the NOM had done a WP:BEFORE they would have noticed. Searching Google for a definition, the first entries for the subject come from the law schools at Yale, Georgetown, Columbia and Harvard. Other WP:RS quote those law discussions. Simply put, its a thing which the article covers, supported by sources. I'll go further. This is an example of a frivolous AfD. I think the NOM should be penalized for wasting our time. Trackinfo (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is no process to penalize frivolous nominators who ignore the WP:BEFORE, but there should be. Trackinfo (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about for those who ignore WP:AGF? TJRC (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I assume TJRC meant that comment as a sarcastic personal attack against me, there actually is a point to be made. Editors who are adjudicated as having violated WP:AGF can have their editing privileges removed. There is no enforcement against editors who abuse WP:BEFORE. I am not referring to the Nominator of this ill founded AfD, but there are some who are serial abusers of creating *fDs without performing WP:BEFORE and I do think there should be a point system to adjudicate abuse so those editors should lose their *fD nominating privileges. Trackinfo (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we all WP:AGF because it is required. Moreover, the implicit threats to those who transgress is a mere Whataboutism diversion. I trust we will be WP:Civil and comment on the edits and article, not on each other.

The article should not be deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially not with so many viable merge targets. Given WP:NOTPAPER and all, maybe a page like WP:RULEZ#hardballerZ would be a good !place to fortify and re-constitute wiki-praxis. What do you think, 13? ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's nothing new about this – see What America can learn from the fall of the Roman republic, for example. We don't need a recentist baseball metaphor for this when there are plenty of other pages already, including:

Abuse of process

Corruption

End justifies the means

Letter and spirit of the law

Andrew D. (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big encyclopaedia. Almost 5.8 million articles. WP:Not paper. As your list suggests, there is some overlap, but they are not synonymous. No reason to merge, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:46, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 15:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gayish (podcast)

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

This is by no means a {{db-web}} case but I'm not convinced by the references, or by my own source searches, that this passes WP:NWEB. SITH (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for further sources and couldn't find anything else than what is already listed in the article. Unfortunately I don't think that's enough; there isn't one stand alone article about the podcast. The best they've got for sources would be inclusion in lists of podcasts (Buzzfeed article, etc). Maybe WP:TOOSOON? --Kbabej (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redirect target. wumbolo ^^^ 22:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:TOOSOON. PlotHelpful (talk) 15:11, 27 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 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. There is a consensus that sufficient coverage exists, though in non-English language sources, and the coverage can be used to expand this article substantially. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanremo Music Festival 2019

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

WP:CRYSTAL. I would have ordinarily redirected it as Whispering, Elmidae and Praxidicae did before me, but they have been reverted at every turn. My choice would be to restore the redirect until the event has happened but sysop protect it until then. SITH (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This event is notable and almost certain to take place (in about three weeks). It could certainly be built out more already--for comparison, see the Italian, German, or French versions of this page. I think that it is a convenience to readers to have this page created already. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Lucifero4

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as previously done, until there is a) sufficient content available to potentially support an article (that is the stub criterion that all of these "upcoming event in 2023" fragments keep violating), and b) sufficient sourcing for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep This is a major cultural event, taking place in less than a month. We have articles on future Olympic Games and Football World Cups that are far less certain to take place. With all due respect, the silliest delete nomination I've seen in all my years at WP. Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just take a look at the Italian version of this page. Plenty of informations and extensive coverage. Even if it would not happen, it would still be notable. 151.74.244.146 (talk) 01:14, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Cline

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

Delete I hate to say it, but I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for notability. Craig was well-known and well-loved, judging by the comments, but without proper references, topic fails WP:BIO. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no convincing claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Railway Market – Central and Eastern European Review

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find any coverage about this publication online. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:29, 16 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 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. ~ GB fan 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Caudell

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only the unreliable IMDb is used, which isn't by itself enough to warrant an article, and any other sources found are subpar and/or don't go into much depth on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to have only had minor roles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that is all terrifically minor but as far as I'm concerned should add up to notability, even though by a thin margin. Weak keep, with thanks to E.M. Gregory's work. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY the Hal Erickson book I just added, after Drmies made his comment, puts it over the top. Minor roles, minor attention paid, plus minor attention paid to singer-songwriter career. It is useful to readers to be able to identify minor actors in films.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Hal Erickson book offers a fair amount of depth, Courier-Tribune gives less than a cumulative paragraph on him (not enough for WP:SIGCOV), and I can't really assess the Globe and Mail citation as it requires a login. Could you perhaps find something more accessible? One citation with significant coverage by itself isn't enough and it's hard to measure citations that need logins. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added source as requested by Nom. A book. More books and magazine and newspaper stories show up in searches. And, of course, paywalled sources are legitimate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The additions do help. I'm not saying paywalled sources are bad, only that it's harder to assess their depth. Anyway, Days of Our Lives: A Complete History of the Long-Running Soap Opera only contains a very minor mention of him, but I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie goes into much more detail and might be just enough for this page to be worth keeping unless anybody has objections over its credibility. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:29, 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 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Drost

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

WP:Before and the refs in the article don't indicate notability. Tagged for notability since 2014. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep refs do indicate notabiloty, as described in the article.- Altenmann >talk 06:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak DELETE There is not a lot here, and I am unsure if any of the awards would confirm notability (As the awards themselves do not seem to be all that notable).Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- worlds top innovators award not notable? Hmm let me sleep on it.... - Altenmann >talk 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ....done. Go ahead an delete the article about award, if you suceed, I am with you, if not the award is, how to put it correctly?... notable? - Altenmann >talk 04:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it is a list, ~~not an award~~. Also the link seems broken, so I cannot even verify the claim/Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this Innovators Under 35?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really care to stand for this guy. And there is mo more sum microsystems to stand for him. And it looks like nothing else useful can be found of him - Altenmann >talk 08:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak ~~delete~~keep He's written a number of articles and has a lot of patents, but I don't know of any standard that uses these to show notability. He had a discovery that got him onto an MIT list of "100 Innovators Under 35" but it's basically just a list of names and one sentence summaries. I'm leaning delete because I didn't find significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources which is what the GNG requires.Sandals1 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to change my vote based on DGG's comments. I didn't know about the patent citations.Sandals1 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of WP:PROF. Though scientist or engineer in a technical field can be notable from their work in other ways than publications, he meets the standard for beign an authority in his field on the basis of the publications. He has multiple publications with high citations (the highest is 230 ! ) many of them in iEEE symposia, which are the highest quality sources in his field,.We evaluate patents by two criteria: one is whether they are exploited in a significant way, (which I am unable to analyze) and the other is just like journal articles, by the citations to them . His two highest cited patents have been referenced 150 and 83 times. That's enough in an subject. I wonder why nobody looked,but perhaps it wasn't realizerd that patents are included in Google Scholar just the same as other publications. (I'll add the citations to the article tomorrow) DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 27 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 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brainerd

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

Delete Does not appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are poor and not entirely reliable or are Primary. Biggest claim to fame is a claim to have coined the phrase "Desktop Publishing" Fails WP:BIO. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I saw some decent sources in a search. There is recent news coverage regarding his philanthropy, and numerous book references on his computer career. They're not extremely strong, but they are enough for WP:BASIC.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ThatMontrealIP:, that's great! Can you post links? I am unable to locate any decent references that meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, @HighKing:, but next time maybe you can do the research before nominating? I found these by employing a standard Google search with the quoted phrase "Paul Brainerd", sometimes with "Aldus" or "philanthropy". Some are in-depth and some are passing mentions of the DTP phrase he coined. The sources deal with both his role in computer history and his more recent, widely covered, efforts in New Zealand to establish some kind of ecological retreat. There are at least a dozen more mentions of his role in establishing DTP that I have not included. So there you are.

US couple 'give back' with trailblazing Glenorchy camp ground
How Paul Brainerd’s extraordinary career went from revolutionizing publishing to empowering enviros:"The sale in 1994 of Seattle’s Aldus to Adobe for $525 million didn’t end Paul Brainerd’s entrepreneurial run. It just pointed it in a new direction. A personal windfall of roughly $120 million allowed Brainerd, whose PageMaker software revolutionized desktop publishing, to break from the business world and move to nonprofits. He spearheaded the launch of a series of organizations that sought innovative strategies for practicing philanthropy, education and saving the environment."
Foreign investment in the South Island: Strangers in Paradise
Meggs' History of Graphic Design
Glenorchy rift 'ripping the town apart'
Responsibility at Work: How Leading Professionals Act (or Don't Act) Responsibly
Type: The Secret History of Letters
Forbes: "Take Paul Brainerd, a former journalist who founded Aldus, the developer of the desktop publishing program PageMaker. After making millions from the sale of his company, he started the Brainerd Foundation, which focuses on environmental protection in the Pacific Northwest, in 1995. From there, he founded Islandwood, a 250-acre outdoor learning center that brings kids from urban neighborhoods to Bainbridge Island, Wash., to educate them about the environment."
International directory of Company Histories
Infoworld article
The Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary
Infoworld again
Desktop Publishing: Anwendungen, Erfahrungen, Prognosen
Computerintegrierter Arbeitsplatz im Büro: München
Australian Printer Magazine
Business Week
Entrepreneur magazine encyclopedia of entrepreneurs
Computing fundamentals
PC world
Time Magazine:"Toward the end of 1984, a gentleman named Paul Brainerd, the CEO of PageMaker, showed Apple CEO John Sculley and his team a new software product. This was the first WYSIWYG program of its kind and as Brainerd pointed out at the time, the Mac made it possible for him to create such a product. The term “desktop publishing” came out of the union of Apple’s Mac, the laser printer and Aldus’ PageMaker. It changed the world of publishing forever."
Macworld
Macworld: the Macintosh Magazine
Inside Philanthropy
Cases in Corporate Acquisitions, Buyouts, Mergers, and Takeovers
US News and World Report
Personal Computing, Volume 14
This Place on Earth: Home and the Practice of Permanence
Design World
Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools for the Professional Programmer
Personal Publishing, Volume 7, Issues 1-12
Venture Philanthropy
Desktop Publishing in the University: Opinions and Experiences of Professional and Non Professional Publishers
New York Times
New York Times Interview
New York Times article on Social Ventures Partners, one of his philanthropy projects: "It has to do with a generational shift, said Paul Brainerd, who founded Social Venture Partners after he collected $150 million from the sale of his software company, the Aldus Corporation, to the Adobe Corporation in 1994. These are people in their 30's and 40's who have more to give than just their money. They have their intellects, their minds. Their idea is more than just charity. It's investing."
PHILANTHROPY: THE NEXT GENERATION - The Washington Post " Paul Brainerd and his friends don't have much experience being rich..."
Computer Age Millionaires Redefine Philanthropy, The New York Times

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nomination claims coining a phrase isn't enough for notability. Fair enough, however in this case he did not simply make up a phrase. He co-founded a company that brought out the first WYSIWYG consumer Desktop publishing program. Then he coined the phrase. There's a bit of work there. Per WP:ANYBIO, he made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". That contribution to the field is widely recognized above, in the many different publications... Time, the New York Times etc. He is mentioned is just about every history of DTP.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think, thanks to ThatMontrealIP, that there are enough sources to show that the GNG is met. There are a lot of passing mentions, but also some good profiles.Sandals1 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too late for a Speedy Keep. Thanks to ThatMontrealIP for all his RS! StrayBolt (talk) 16:32, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot (Spanish American independence)

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

Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~I'm also going to nominate~~ Patriot Governments (Spanish American independence) needs to be renamed, but to what? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mattilo

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

Non-notable musician, promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement by the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON for the kind of sources you would expect for a biographical article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising for a 17-year-old musician. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or found. The "media outlets" mentioned in the article are a blog and what appear to be two paid publicity sites. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and other rationale above. Too soon, promotional, no reliable sources. Eagleash (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK1. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital addict

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

non WP:MEDRS compliant, WP:SYNTH, important issue, new article proposed E.3 (talk) 14:11, 13 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} 14:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's rationale consists of "This article is bad. We should have a better article on this topic." However, deletion is not cleanup. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with the above statement. I have attempted thorough cleanup by citing previously uncited statements that were unable to be cited on the page I made digital media use and mental health. I hope more can come across from this page but I can’t see it yet. In my opinion there are three options 1. Keeping both pages and cleaning up both
2. Keeping this page and improving it with the citations and text on the other page which is much more policy compliant, with careful consideration of the title. 3. Deleting this page and moving all useable content to the other. Thanks to everyone. —E.3 (talk) 01:32, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skipp A. H. Williamson

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

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

No real claim to fame here. Sources are either listings or casual mentions. Being a businesswoman isn't enough to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This person was named 3rd most influential management consultant in Australia by the Australian Financial Review, the country's leading business news paper. She is one of the leading business people in the country and owns a global consulting firm. Compared to others on Wikipedia, she ought to measure up quite well. I would say.

Against deletion. New but motivated (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable: a profile as "success story", one of top 50 LGBTI business executives in Australia, The most influential consultants in Australia revealed (one of 5), etc. Not just passing mentions. Possibly Fellowship of Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering is in itself a notability claim too. PamD 10:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article title: if kept, rename to Skipp Williamson as sources, even including formal ones like fellowship list, don't use her middle initials. Would have moved it myself except for ongoing AfD. PamD 10:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For info: on going to create the redirect from the natural title of Skipp Williamson I found there that an article at that title had been created in Dec 2015, speedied A7, moved to userspace as User:Donaldeval/Skipp Williamsonat user's request, deleted at user's request, user then blocked; page was re-created in March 2016 and March 2017 and deleted each time as "(G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Mamadoutadioukone) in violation of ban or block (TW))". I know nothing about that blocked user, and can't see whether this article is a re-creation of that ... but the "success story" ref is October 2017, so this is clearly NOT an exact copy, at least, of the deleted version. PamD 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree w the renaming suggestion.

New but motivated (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable in Australian context. one of the bigger employers in the industry Rmarsden (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just enough IRS to satisfy WP:NEXIST to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fit in any more acronyms? ;) Rmarsden (talk) 11:58, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Doctor

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

This page is about what appears to be a piece of fanfiction, albeit one with a famous actor. The references fall far short of RS guidelines, and a Google search doesn't throw out anything more reliable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate reaction from one originator

Not fan fiction

It is not clear what is meant by 'fanfiction' (or 'fan fiction'?). The Dr Who meme is fiction of course, but this was a serious attempt to contribute to contemporary drama in a meaningful way. I will ask the author and the community concerned to dig deeper into the references and respond here - the article (as it stands) was published shortly after the completion of the first performance(s).

It is important in the local history

The development and production of this dramatic work was at the behest of, and with the support of, an extensive local community in Liverpool. It is an important factor in their recent history and dramatic efforts. It gained wider interest as will be evidenced and it was the beginning of a project that will continue.

It is an important shared matter for different groups

This work stands at the intersection of at least four perspectives: the core Dr Who fan base, those interested in Dr Who spin-offs, the Ken Campbell fan base, the community of local actors in Liverpool that supported and realised it, and it also demonstrates an idea that actual recorded material from deceased performers can be used to perpetuate their work and inspire future work. There is of course an argument that it could be incorporated into some other (better-known?) corpus of Wikipedia work, but this reviewer's view is that it is better to let it stand alone and be cross-referenced from other places.

I will revert with further comments when I have heard from other sources AndyB (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding: please bear in mind that any arguments in support of keeping the article need to be based on WP:GNG, in particular with regard to having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnotable radio episode that hasn't attracted much mainstream notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found that cover this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darell (rapper)

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

Lack of sources that are not passing mentions or personal social media posts. Notability as an artist nowhere near sufficiently documented (including, as far as I can determine, Spanish-language sources). Does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my source review below. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

"Anuel AA Reveals He and J.Lo Will Feature on the Second Remix of "Te Boté"". Remezcla. 2018-07-18. Retrieved 2019-01-14. - Only listed as collaborator, nothing else. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez, Gary. "With Help From Bad Bunny, Nicky Jam And Ozuna, A Latin Trap Single Does Mainstream Numbers". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-14. two very brief mentions. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez, Gary. "With New Remixes By Anuel AA And Jennifer Lopez, 'Te Boté' Reigns Supreme". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-14. Briefly mentioned, to state that the verse that he provided is absent from the hit that the article discusses. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"'Te Bote (Remix)' Tops Google's Most-Searched Spanish Lyrics in 2018". Billboard. Retrieved 2019-01-10. - simply listed as collaborator. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Isgro

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

Local mayor whose only claim to fame is telling David Hogg to "eat it". Local coverage of this one event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isgro is now vice-chair of the Maine Republican Party and a multi-term mayor of one of Maine's largest cities. Those are his "claims to fame". The incident with David Hogg contributes to his notability but its existence is not reason to delete his article.--TM 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being vice-chair of a state political party chapter, nor being mayor of a city with a population of just 16K, constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — and no, the fact that the state is small enough that a population of 16K is enough to make it one of the state's 15 largest cities does not automatically make him special, as the notability standards for mayors do not test for the city's ranking in an ordinal list of city sizes either. The notability test for smalltown mayors hinges entirely on the ability to reliably source enough genuinely substantive content about him to make him a special case over and above most other smalltown mayors — but that hasn't been shown here at all, and nothing that has been shown here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does Isgro's notability rise "over and above" most people in a similar office? Of course. Both the controversy around David Hogg and his subsequent election as vice chair of the Maine Republican Party mark Isgro as substantially more notable than Maine mayors of cities twice the size of Waterville. But more importantly, this case raises questions of who and what Wikipedia is for. As mayor of one of the largest cities in the state and vice chair of Maine's GOP, Isgro is an inherently important figure in the Maine political landscape. Failing to include him in Wikipedia would deprive readers interested in Maine politics of important information.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The controversy around David Hogg" just makes him a WP:BLP1E, and being vice-chair of a state political party counts for exactly jackspit against our notability criteria in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to get him over WP:GNG for it. Our job here is not to keep articles about people who can't be properly sourced as notable just because one random anonymous internet person thinks they're important — our job is to follow the media coverage, create articles about people who get enough media coverage to pass our notability standards, and not create articles about people who don't. The depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage in media is what tells us whether a person is actually "important" enough to have a Wikipedia article or not — nobody is ever so critically important for us to have an article about that we waive the sourcing requirements on the grounds that their importance somehow outweighs their inadequate sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – looks like a BLP1E situation. He is not notable other than for his reportedly inappropriate statements about David Hogg. Being the mayor of a small town does not usually constitute an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia automatically, like Bearcat stated. Fails first criteria of WP:GNG and fails criteria two of WP:NPOL. CookieMonster755 ✉ 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because Waterville's last mayor ended up becoming governor does not make the office itself notable. Laurier Raymond and other mayors of Lewiston, despite their own "foot-in-mouth" moments, do not pass notability for those events. Normally, party insiders and apparatchiks don't meet notability standards. And despite being one of the "largest cities in the state" (and in that case, everything is relative), Waterville is not a city of global prominence where a mayor would be globally known (See Rudy Guiliani, John Tory, Rob Ford, etc.) Bkissin (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the notability standards for mayors aren't as dependent on global city status as the notability standards for city councillors are. They do still require more substance and sourcing than this, certainly, but they aren't limited to cities of global prominence. Cities far outside that range can have articles about their mayors if we can write and source articles with some actual meat to them, even in cities where the city councillors aren't getting in the door. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, most of his coverage leans towards it being a WP:BLP1E situation. GPL93 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CookieMonster755. --Enos733 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supper fail of any reasonable notability test. Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Strategic Counsel

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

The lead relates to a Canadian organisation. The bulk of the article is about an Australian organisation with which it should not be confused. A quick inspection of the revision history suggests that the only reference ever present since the article's creation in 2005 has been the Canadian organisation's website. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some LinkedIn profiles, but nothing WP:RS about either organisation. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear, from its creation in 2005 the article was always only about the Canadian company until just 12 days ago, when somebody added the Australian lobbying firm as brand new content that was never in the article before this year — but neither topic has the proper sourcing to support its notability per WP:CORP or WP:ORG, as the Canadian company cites no sources at all (and has never previously had any sources in it before) while the Australian firm cites only its own self-published primary sourcing. And I can't find solid sourcing on a ProQuest search to repair the Canadian company's notability, either — I get a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (mainly political or social stories in which SC happens to have done some polling), but I can't find adequate coverage about SC as a subject. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to give one or the other of them much more depth than just a brief statement that it exists, but neither of these topics is cutting it under our notability and sourcing criteria as they actually stand. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep arguments mention things that may indicate notability, but which do not demonstrate that the subject meets one of our actual criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B.F.F Is Ready

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

Sources aren't reliable, list track listings. Nothing to indicate it is notable enough for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nn recording by artiste without article; had YMA4 existed I would say redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete — Falls under speedy deletion criteria as a non-notable album without a parent artist article (the artist is likely not notable anyways).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC) editor has been blocked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't blocked for socking, so really the !vote shouldn't be struck as there is no basis for striking votes of non-socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The album was required by one of the biggest record label in South Africa "Gallo Records and the label had number of meetings with YMA4 about record and publishing deals including Sheer Music. They also met with Nasty C for upcoming projects. The duo performed a song named " Myself" from the mixtape on "Expression", a programme on SABC 1. Dwayne Moony 15:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

None of that matters for this particular album article because the album has not been discussed in the media, and all information about it (including the sources in the article now) are simply listings at retail/streaming sites like you would find for any other run-of-the-mill album. Also, per Wikipedia policy there should be no album article if there is no article for the rap duo. Consider creating a supportable (with sources) article for the rap duo first, if there is evidence that they are notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The album is clearly non-notable on its own terms (see my comment above), and there is no place for this album article if the band has no article of their own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, These guys performed in India they shared stage with Indian rapper Rbbt, King Monada, Sho Madjozi and some of their songs were aired on BBC Radio 4. According to Notable criteria mentioned by Doomsdayer520 the mixtape meet at least certain requirements since some of the songs from the mixtape were performed on SABC's one major programmes and got airplay outside South Africa, does that make the duo not notable according to you? Surely someone will create there parent article and artists they shared stages with and programme they appeared on since they qualify to have there own articles as well. Mr Samm W. 00:54 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This voting process is about the album. Whether or not the rap duo is notable will be a separate discussion when and if someone writes an article about them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree is about the album,the album is used by South African media company, was performed on nation television show, rated for international level and it is not a self-published album.Dwayne Moony 12:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search turned up no WP:RS sources whatsoever. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One wet weather races

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

Unnecessary article; could as well create List of Formula One windy weather races if this will stay. The whole article consists of a paragraph and a table which only emboldens the rainy races' name. This page gives no substantial information. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would seem to fall under WP:NOTSTATS, but I am not an "expert" in this subject. What I can glean from the content is that this is (apparently) a formal declaration made within the sport ("officially declared by race director as wet weather race") that has consequences for how the cars are outfitted (and I don't know what else), so it would seem that it is objectively verifiable. But I don't know what is gained by marking a history of how many and which races were held under this condition. Formula One#Race mentions "wet conditions" and links to this list but does not explain further. I don't know if the nom is being facetious with "windy weather races", but if that's also a possible declaration made by the "race director" then an overview in the parent article of all of the different such race conditions and their consequences would seem like the best way to cover this. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A wet race is definitely a thing within F1: declaration of a race as wet changes the regulations about which tyres can or must be used. Some F1 drivers are specifically known for their skill in the wet; they're called 'rainmasters'; among active drivers, the multi-World Champions Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel, and relative newcomer Max Verstappen. It is not uncommon for one part of the track to be dry (tyres overheat and degrade) and another part wet (driving on a skidpan with zero visibility).

There is no such thing as a windy race.

I have no strong opinion on whether or not this article passes WP:GNG in its current form; but IMO it would pass GNG (under a better title, e.g. Formula One wet weather races) if it included a discussion of the topic in general, which should be easy to source. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A wet weather race is very important parameter of F1. Race. It is important for statistics, race conditions. Wet weather also changing the regulation of race. Some of the drivers are real specialist for wet races. Windy races has no real influence for motor racing, but rain so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brankom (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure trivia. People have to start remembering that Wikipedia is a general purpose wikipedia and not a fansite for motorsports enthusiasts (let alone F1 specific fans). Whatever is worth mentioning about wet weather racing can be mentioned in the general article on Formula One.T v x1 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the points raised by Narky Blert. The page would pass under a better title, but would also require elaboration, perhaps summarising the significance of the difference of wet conditions in Formula One. Clearly it is more significant than a 'windy race', and there is certainly something to be said about drivers known for their wet-weather ability. I think this may be an example where expanding or improving the article could render it worthy of keeping. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comment, I thought I might elaborate on potential additional sections which could make this article worthy of keeping:

Wet-weather conditions: Explain the difference this has (the use of wet tyres, how this removes need to run mandatory tyre, potential strategy implications etc.)
List of wet weather races by circuit/Grand Prix: Are there circuits that have been wet-weather races more often than others? Perhaps a table with the most frequent wet-weather races would provide more insight than just the big table of all wet-weather races on its own.
Notable wet-weather races/performances: Some wet-weather races are obviously not particularly interesting and can be rather processional, but there have been several races made particularly unique due to the wet-weather such as Japan 1976, Spain 1996, Italy 2008, Silverstone 2008 or Canada 2011 where the weather has significantly impacted the race result or produced a memorable performance from some drivers, or in the case of Japan '76 where Lauda retired due to the conditions despite contesting the WDC with Hunt.
Rainmasters: Perhaps a brief section with a link to Rainmaster, which mentions Formula One drivers who have been described as a 'rainmaster' for their ability to drive in wet-weather conditions such as Gilles Villeneuve, Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Lewis Hamilton etc.

Formulaonewiki (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it would "pass" under a different title and with expansion, then it passes currently, because we don't delete pages for fixable reasons. See WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 as this is a recreation of a previously deleted article under a different name. Refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix --Falcadore (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we're going to "speedy delete" something four days into a discussion on the basis of a ten-year old AFD. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm struggling to see this as anything but trivia Spiderone 18:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 06:07, 21 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 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. There is a consensus that if this article were to be deleted, it should be as part of a mass discussion that includes similar railway station articles. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halvad railway station

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

I am not seeing enough independent coverage of this station to merit an article. All I personally find is railway timetables. — $f r +$ 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? Or just because other were kept in the past, because others were kept in the past etc. The Banner talk 00:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Relevant policy here would be WP:NBUILD (infrastructure). There's also the essay, WP:STATION. All of which basically sums to "go with WP:GNG". I am unqualified to judge notability here, but at the very least this should be a redirect to Viramgam–Maliya Miyana section or some other suitable article. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus, which is the primary deciding policy, wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This way thousands of editors don't waste time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist. An article for such a station serving a town of over 60,000 (which this one does) in the UK or US would never even be considered for deletion even if there was zero coverage in the article. Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping railway stations because they exist is indeed a systematic bias. The Banner talk 12:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the thousands of other similar article on rail stations speaks to the consensus. Ths issue could be addressed by RFC, but picking off this one is not appropriate. MB 02:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My understanding is that railway stations are inherently notable .... but I agree with the above there should be some sort of RFC on it

(SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a perfect example - "Keep because schools are notbale as per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" → RFC takes place → Everyone more or less voted to do away with the essay → Schools are no longer inherently notable (so it can easily be changed).

Anyway keep. –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 20 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 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haal E Kangaal

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

Fails WP:NFO. Director is notable for winning award for another film, but this film on its own doesnt meet notability criteria. Daiyusha (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability factor added, as in the films world premier in a major art house film festival in Austria. Guddi1111 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant reliable sources coverage such as a full independent review in The Hindu newspaper shown here thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. The article was promotional as heck but I've trimmed it down and removed any weasel words, peacock terms and POV content (diff). SITH (talk) 21:12, 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 11:31, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcoo Camp

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

There is no notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 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 11:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kilcoo hosts Camp Awakening (established as a "camp within a camp") which has received substantial amounts of significant coverage in reliable sources: 1 2 3. "Camp Awakening" basically is Kilcoo so coverage of one is coverage of the other. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no mention of "Camp Awakening" in the article and it appears the "Camp Awakening" is an entirely separate organization which places the participating boys at Kilcoo and the girls in a different place. As such, this organization fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that Camp Awakening isn't mentioned in the article - the standard for deletion is what the article could be, not what it is. FOARP (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Camp Awakening" "basically is Kilcoo" and "coverage of one is coverage of the other" and therefore Kilcoo should be notable because Camp Awakening is notable. But the only references you provide to support what you say actually don't say anything of the sort. Camp Awakening is an entirely different organization - different people, different website. There is nothing in the Kilcoo article about this Camp and nothing in the Kilcoo website either. Notwitstanding that notability is not inherited, you are reaching a conclusion not supported from the cited sources. On its own merits, Kilcoo Camp fails the tests for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This reference calls Camp Awakening a "Camp within a camp" at Camp Kilcoo that "shares the facilities with mainstream campers" - i.e., they're the same thing. The separate camp you refer to is the girl's camp, which started involvement with Camp Awakening a number of years after the boy's camp. This reference states that "The program is divided into a boys camp and a girls camp — seven kids in each — with the boys staged out of Kilcoo Camp in Minden". The television coverage on Roger's TV linked above begins with a shot of the "Camp Kilcoo" sign and covers the camp. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we actually had an article about Camp Awakening, then this could be mentioned in and redirected there. But they're not the same thing for the purposes of establishing that Camp Kilcoo is notable enough for an article — Kilcoo is a camp facility, while Awakening is an organization that organizes a camping event held at Camp Kilcoo. But notability is not inherited, so the fact that a potentially more notable organization uses Kilcoo as a venue is not a notability freebie that exempts Kilcoo from having to have reliable source coverage about Kilcoo. This is the same as the reason why the camp facility where I used to do Boy Scouts camp in the summer is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because the Boy Scouts themselves are — the camp isn't itself the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear a Wikipedia notability standard, and just because the camp's events included regional Boy Scout camp week doesn't make them the same thing as the Boy Scouts themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Balkan Insight. There's a suggestion to merge this into Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (which in turn is just a redirect to Balkan Insight), but I don't see any real consensus to do so. I'll leave the history intact under the redirect so if somebody wants to mine this for material to merge, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Censorship About War Crimes

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all the references are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles Association of Court Reporters, TV Justice and Radio Justice . Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: relies totally on WP:SPS to establish notability. SITH (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network is probably notable, though that article also relies on its own publications, but the four articles about its activities should be merged into it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for lack of notability and per WP:TNT. Not independently notable of Balkan Insight; way too much promotion going on. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination in few weeks or months if the sources posted by FOARP are not enough for the nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colos (rapper)

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

No references to reliable sources in the history of this article. No claim of notability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This appears to be significant coverage of Colos in German, this is an interview but appears to have a brief bio, I'm not sure what kind of publication this is but it doesn't appear to be self-published and does appear to be significant coverage. Really we need some input from German speakers since the references that might show notability appear to be all (?) in German. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tugger: The Jeep 4x4 Who Wanted to Fly

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

Notability. Two reviews in local publications, if that is the scale of available refs, is an argument for lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP WP:AUD is 1) only for organisations, 2) a guideline, 3) completely illogical garbage that should be deleted since, according to what it says, coverage in the media of Andorra is "national" and therefore good but coverage in the London media may be "local" and therefore insufficient. The relevant standard is WP:NFILM which two reviews meets, regardless of whether they are "local" (whatever this means) or not. I also see no sign here that the nom has done WP:BEFORE and I'm inclined to think they haven't because of the bit about "if that is the scale of the refs". FOARP (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Given the cast, there's surprisingly little media attention. But the small American sources, combined with this capsule review in the South African media, are probably sufficient to clear the bar. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Pelofsky

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

Sources are either non-main-stream sites, interviews, local gossip, or not relevant to the subject. Created by an SPA fan. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER after WP:BEFORE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sourcing is not ideal,a s pointed out. However she does have some kind of presence as a news search turns up many mentions. Not ideal, but I think she may meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:37, 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) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to me source-able but not notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:35, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital dependencies and global mental health

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

Lots of reasons for deletion. Duplicates an existing article. WP:NOTESSAY. Very odd title consistent with same. WP:SPLIT which may be better addressed by discussion on the original article. Lots of original synthesis. Tom (LT) (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination, the article has received a lot of attention, with most of my major concerns addressed and a lot more hands / eyes on board. I agree the new title makes a lot more sense and is in fact a topic notable enough to be covered here. For what it's worth, I withdraw my nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social media addiction (which it was a fork from). There's useful material here, but the title sucks and the motivation to write on these topics while ducking MEDRS was never going to work. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has changed considerably from when it was nominated. It still requires a lot of work and there are many unresolved issues, but AfD is not clean-up. At this point in time, I support weak keep, but happy for the issue to be re-visited once other merge discussions have been settled and some stability reached. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ducking MEDRS at all. We need to recognise very carefully that the words "use" "addiction" "dependence" and "overuse" are exactly the same - the same topic - there is just differentiation in terminology here. I'm not married to any titles. I simply contend that as social media addiction (or dependence or overuse) or whatever should and must be separate as that predominantly affects women and girls. Womens health are presently happy for that to be a top importance article. This article is meant to try to cover them all in their broader societal context. MEDRS certainly applies. We are not able to include the most reliable study due to unknown reasons that editors do not comment on. This is the reason for the RfCs and the notices. Linguistics should come to consensus. We do not comment on the content of digital addict or screen time which in my opinion breaks guidelines to far greater extent. We need to take into account all disciplines opinions here. Neuroscience portal members thanked me for joining, we need more neuroscience. We have to develop consensus around linguistics. Having a start class article about social media addiction is OK considering womens health are happy to have it rated high importance. Because it is. E.3 (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with caution This article was originally a fork of Social media addiction and most of the content had previously been removed from that article per WP:SYN. It looks like the WP:SYN has mostly been trimmed and there may be some useful non-duplicate content that can be merged. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is addressing in a far better, much more WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS compliant way with top importance from all associated portals than digital addict which for some reason all editors are not commenting on. I have brought all usable things from that article across. We should delete that one and keep this separate, I have no idea why its only my edits on the issue being questioned. And my questions remain unanswered about ADHD. This is against the policies of false balance and weight, its getting a little bit over the top now, I've attracted as much attention from quite literally any other editor, but linguistic gymnastics is causing some severe WP:POV issues here. E.3 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Increasingly prevelance of mental health issues over the last 8 years or so do indeed represent a huge problem. For American girls for example, rates of major depressive episodes & sucide seem to have increased by close to 100%. Thousands of reasearchers are invsestigating the links with digital, and the article does a fair job of capturing this. Only weak keep however as I partly share the nom's concern about synth. Synth concerns could IMO be significantly reduced if the article was re-titled to either Digital technolgy and mental health or Digital platforms and mental health. Such a change should also help with NPOV, as it then becomes easier to include the many positive findings about tech's impact on mental health. If E.3. agrees with this, I'd be happy to upgrade my vote to strong keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to E.3 to agree or not. No-one owns any article. It is up to the community. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the preference intensity of my vote is entirely up to E.3. Whether or not a re-title is allowed to stand is indeed a matter for the community. Hopefully folks will work collaboratively with E.3. to improve the quality of the article, as while of huge impact & notability, this is admittedly not an easy topic to write about. Time will tell. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I comment that it was not an essay at all because I quoted things all the time before and then I was told it was not free. This is not quasi science. Consensus at the moment is against improving hard science. No one tells me why. This is allowed to include philosophy sociology anthropology and they all have their feet in the game. Perfectly happy to change it to any title “digital technology and mental health” sounds fine to me, I have six other suggestions open for comment —-E.3 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is neither an essay or quasi science. Many editors have tried to explain why you've been getting push back. In brief, you're trying to move too fast. Let me give you some examples. You chosen one of the world's most pressing and complex topics to write about. You tried to have the article elevated to our highest status on day one! Folk tried to give you advise about the danger of being too enthusiastic and the need to let the article improve "over time". Instead you put the article up for GA status on day two. That's almost as hasty as trying to get your article promoted to FA on day 1. Especially as you clearly don't yet have the experience to know how guidelines like WP:Synth & WP:NOR are applied. There's lots more to it of course but this isn't the place for a long and comprehensive answer. Again, sorry if this is disheartening. As said, this is a hugely important topic and I'd sure I'm not the only one who would very much like you to succeed in helping to build a good article on the topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for this FredHuxtable and i agree with both your comments here and on my talk page. I will change the title to digital media use and mental health - we need to focus on association, we need to quote those who say its nothing if theyre reliable etc etc. etc. All the mentioned specialties are involved. I'll leave social media addiction to more experienced editors as that essay is far too stressful for me personally to edit - due to the edit conflicts, not my coi or pov (which I keep admitting is intentionally trying to be neutral and consider quite literally all reliable sources from all related disciplines). Also as my MEDRS RfC has had some comment I'll try and add the hard science. Many people are sayiing that i'm working too fast. I am being WP:BOLD because I am not doctoring for 4 more weeks, and I wont have much time to contribute after that. E.3 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia does not and should not provide spaces for untested quasi-scientific essays.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE do not change the title while the article is in AfD. David notMD (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had commented here on how content about ADHD would likely be off-topic for the article - leading to the renaming from "Digital dependencies and global mental health" to "Digital media use and mental health". This indicates that this is content in search of a place on Wikipedia, not an attempt to write an encyclopedia article about any fixed topic (more specifically, apparently Wikipedia should say somewhere that social media use may cause ADHD). The current title is uselessly vague. Neither is suitable for an encyclopedia. The content is a hodge-podge of factoids that might be relevant to the topic (or not) but are here assembled to push a certain POV. Huon (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not responding to you, I repetitively state that I am not trying to only consider adhd here, I am not, please trust me. I am responding to the above editor who suggested the title is the problem, the only super helpful suggestion so far, so I did it. I won’t do it again. This is not a POV. The sources as the other editor states are quite literally everywhere and most if not all are Medrs compliant, sociology wiki project allows discussion of medicine that is their job some of the time, so media sources of reputable people on the issue are allowed to be quoted both under medrs and it being a society and culture article. That is MEDRS policy through and through, what exactly breaks it now? I contend nothing. digital addict, many things. Deletion is not meant to be a form of cleanup. This is an attempt to not even consider my contributions, simply deleting the whole article. As I have RFCd it and they are happy for me only commenters are happy include psychiatry, I’ll do that in a bit. E.3 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if there is no further discussion around the RfCs or pointing out to me how this logic does not apply in regards to wiki project sociology and medrs, I’ll close the RfCs down, add the parts, and if further edit conflict that isn’t explained I’ll request binding arbitration thanks. I don’t want that, I want help, but no one has added real text to the articles since 2011, and only two helpful suggestions re content for such an important issue. —-E.3 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stong keep This is a good article although it may benefit from a title change.— Ineuw talk 03:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding it to how digital addict was sorted for more discussion, thanks for everyone so far!

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTESSAY on a vague topic (indeed still after the title was changed during this AfD) and covers a lot of WP:SYNTH. I trimmed related article Social media addiction and after that, this article was created with the same problems and more due to even broader defined title. Also want to repeat what Huon said in their vote above. --Treetear (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ill take it to arbitration if this continues. Two strong keeps, other biased editors, no help, no cleanup of the other articles at all. Something very dodgy is going on. Arbitration next step. E.3 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed that I want arbitration with the two editors who do not discuss their deletions and repetitively call things synth when others do not. They have POV. This is a risky comment but because the 2011 editors contributions to social media addiction were deleted, in mine and others best guess after discussing with some of these experts I have cited, these deletions led to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people. This is why I am taking this matter so seriously E.3 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have my opinions on the talk page and the neutral article on the main page. Thats ok I understand. I listed it, but its not ready for arbitration, its a content dispute. Could editors please comment on the RfCs, preferably uninvolved, as as they said "there are some concerns about the conduct of some editors involved" E.3 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason for deletion has been cited. There are legitimate editorial complaints that can be fixed by editing or even merging the article. We do not delete that which can be fixed. The topic is encyclopedic and it is notable. Digital media is broader than social media. It includes gaming online and video streaming. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on my talk page and my user page I have a mind that thinks quite abstractly and I misunderstand things. I just get very concerned about perceived bias, whilst acknowledging my own. I can write much better than I have here, I just have never attempted to write encyclopaedically and for me as a doctor 1+1=2, for me in the rest of my life 1+1=3. Thanks again everyone! Especially @Bondegezou: sorry about the pushback, @Huon: I mostly just cant understand some things you say despite trying, ill keep trying, @Dlthewave: for effectively being my "otter" and to @FeydHuxtable: for somehow managing to put it on my talk page just now in a way that I understand. E.3 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article isn't just about people addicted to social interactions with digital devices, but also video games and whatnot which effects the developing brains of the young apparently. So a separate article makes sense. Dream Focus 03:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears to me that the two articles social media addiction and digital dependencies and global mental health (terrible title) have evolved to the point where they are separate topics with decent sourcing. I don't believe the notability of either topic is in question, which is really all that matters in an AFD discussion. This isn't a POV fork, it appears to be a valid topic that falls under the WP:SPINOFF or WP:RELART guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is the topic of the article? I can't tell. The lead section doesn't say. The title has changed since the article was nominated for deletion. I don't think those arguing to keep the page agree amongst themselves. Bondegezou, E.3, Ineuw, Jehochman, Dream Focus and Anachronist, would you mind summarizing succinctly what, in your opinion, this page's topic is, maybe in a way that would be suitable as a first sentence? I think we can all agree that the current first sentence could do with improvement and does not suitably introduce or define the topic ("Digital media use has been complicated by digital media overuse, variously termed digital addictions or digital dependencies"; in fact, I'd stick a ^{[Citation needed]} on that sentence if the article is kept). For all those who have argued that this is a notable topic that deserves a stand-alone article, I might agree with you - if only I could tell what that topic is. Huon (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone moved the article while discussion was ongoing, disappointingly. It is currently named Digital media use and mental health. "This is an article about the effects of digital media use on mental health." Seems like a reasonable and notable topic. I have seen lots of articles about this. Everybody seems to use slightly different nomenclature so we have to have a separate discussion about the best name for the article, and whether to increase or decrease the scope, and whether to merge of spin off sub-topics. There's a lot to decide. Deletion is not a substitute for making editorial decisions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So something like "Effects of digital media use on mental health" would be a better title, in your opinion? Does the article, in your opinion, cover that topic beyond what should be placed in social media addiction (which arguably might be considered a sub-topic), ie is there currently any content that couldn't be merged? I don't see much beyond the effects of social media on mental health, nothing beyond the addictive effects of social media use. I'll also note that there was a recent discussion on the talk page about whether journalism might be relevant in some way. Huon (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds good. I would make the other article a child of this one. Place a summary here, and leave the bulk of content there. I'm not sure about journalism. I haven't looked at that discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: it is meant to be the mother article of video game addiction social media addiction and internet addiction disorder. It is about all digital media and their effects on mental health from a societal perspective. I have a whole title discussion on the talk page. E.3 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. We have four articles on the same issue: Internet addiction disorder (created 29 May 2005); Social media addiction (created 24 May 2011); Digital addict (created 14 February 2014); and Digital media use and mental health (created 7 January 2019 as Digital dependencies and global mental health and moved on 13 January). The content should be merged into one article, perhaps called Internet addiction, Digital dependence or Digital dependency, where the social and medical aspects can be addressed in different subsections. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article becomes too long, presumably sections can be spun out as child articles. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the same page. First, merge to eliminate redundancy and combine related content. Then break apart as needed to create articles of appropriate length and focus. Closing admin, this is what I want. Merge is technically a "keep" type result. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to expand Digital media use and mental health to be broader than about addiction, although I support looking at merging the other articles. Digital media use and mental health now has content on digital media being used to help with mental health and on possible effects of non-addictive use. Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source that discusses this general topic without us engaging in synthesis? Which one? I'll also note that the original author argued above that this should be "the mother article of video game addiction social media addiction and internet addiction disorder", which to me indicates that, at least to him, "addiction" is a central aspect of the topic. Huon (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup to me this is the point. I think we should have the articles separate and improve as they stand. But at the moment it is such a high importance issue, its all encyclopedic, we can't have dodgy articles all over the place about it. I think because of the sex thing social media addiction should be separate to internet addiction, but internet addiction is excessively long and unreadable at present. Digital addict needs a merge I have tried to take all its usable parts here. Happy with any consensus. It works on other languages better than here. The reason being, as I have noted in citations, the word addiction itself causes major major conflict and disagreements amongst the experts. So if we change the tone and sort out the articles here, perhaps at best the experts will follow. E.3 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in answer to the question about a reliable article doing it as a general topic - medicine has not. Anthropology and sociology have for years. Thats why I consider anthropology and sociology should "mother" the medical articles. Because theyve been doing it for longer. The books are summarised, I've read them all. They all talk about it as a general societal topic. E.3 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we have the
social media addiction,
internet addiction disorder,
electronic media and sleep,
video game addiction,
screen time,
mobile phone overuse,
gaming disorder,
digital addict
and nomophobia
all trying to take on this and associated topics. Because of the attention raised to this article, it is the most compliant. There seems to be consensus to me not to delete it, because this is the most thorough attempt at compliance with our policies so far.
I suggest: 1. We don't delete, theres consensus around that I understand (Ish).
2. We consider this to be the mother article, I agree with @Bondegezou: that we can have good parts of tech in mental health in it so that it is neutral. But we do not want it overly vague. It must have medical expert opinion, I suggest at the very least Christiakis has to stay.
3. We then continue the discussion around the title, which is the hardest part of the whole article to develop consensus, for numerous reasons.
4. We keep social media addiction, internet addiction disorder and one of gaming disorder or video game addiction as daughter articles, cleaning up all and moving content to and or from this article.
5. For readability I think we should have the specialties separate in this article, and then link to the disorders in separate articles. Because each specialty fundamentally disagrees on how to broach the topic, only anthropology and sociology are roughly on the same page. Neuroscience is behind. Medicine is at war with each other. Psychology are stuck in the middle.
6. All useable points from screen time, mobile phone overuse, nomophobia, electronic media and sleep, and digital addict are Brought to this article in the coherent fashion involving the specialties or whatever else we decide. Then wiki might make a bit of sense on the issue. E.3 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry theres even more. I put them all as proposed mergers to the page. The topic is all over the place on English wiki in my opinion. Sorry if I broke deletion guidelines about listing mergers, I'm not trying to get around deletion discussions, this is just a tough topic. I really think computer addiction is out of date in terms of the title of its terminology, and I'm a bit shocked by the presence of smartphone zombie. I placed that article in medicine's scope, gave it the only cite I could find that links the two, stated its not medical terminology on the page, and it needs WP:MEDRS compliant references if it is to stay, in my opinion. In my humble opinion, there is some good content on that page but the title needs to go, its highly offensive I suspect to many people. Any assistance with listing these highly complex merges with Wikiproject:Merge would be fantastic I can't work it out. Thanks again everyone. E.3 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the exact wording of usable points from smartphone zombie across and nominated it for deletion here. I did this because there is good content in this article, but in my opinion its presence will continue the moral panic around screen time. E.3 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.3, please wait for one set of discussions to be completed before starting a whole bunch of related ones. Also, please don't start getting into more complex Wikipedia actions until you know what you are doing, or ask for some help. If you tag something as a suggested merge, you need to start a clear discussion on a Talk page explaining your suggestion. I've done that for you now. Your AfD for smartphone zombie has been done incorrectly. Hopefully someone will come along to fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Bondegezou: Thats exactly what I'm doing, asking for help. Thanks for your help. E.3 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason for my actions today is because I am genuinely shocked that smartphone zombie exists on the most up to date, most read resource in the world on these topics. I didn't notice until today, but I am genuinely shocked. E.3 (talk) 10:47, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ignatius University Centre, Antwerp

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

fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 13:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the past educational history and the currently significant activities of this educational center make it notable and worthy of retention. Jzsj (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, the university will be notable. But this just a think tank according to the article. It may be related to the university, but it is not part of it. The Banner talk 00:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The activities of the centre are not significant at all in terms of volume or in terms of their relevance to Wikipedia's readers. See the list of items posted below. The activities listed in the article seek to puff up what is clearly a small and non-notable operation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be the successor to nl:Universitaire Faculteiten Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen after its merger with the University of Antwerp. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The organisation itself added this to that Dutch article in 2010:

Leden van de Sociëteit van Jezus en van de vroegere UFSIA richtten een nieuw academisch centrum in dat de traditie van Ufsia verderzet, zonder zelf een universiteit te zijn: het Universitair Centrum Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen (UCSIA vzw). Het is een onafhankelijke vereniging zonder winstgevend doel die opgericht werd met het doel in de Antwerpse regio de traditie verder te zetten van een Jezuïtisch universitair project dat is toegespitst op thema's die bijzonder gestalte geven aan de christelijke levensvisie en op die manier dienstig is aan het geloof en cultuur en bijdraagt tot een rechtvaardiger samenleving.

Members of the Society of Jesus and of the former UFSIA set up a new academic center that continues the tradition of Ufsia, without being a university itself: the University Center Sint-Ignatius Antwerp (UCSIA vzw). It is an independent non-profit organization founded with the aim to continue the tradition in the Antwerp region of a Jesuit University project that focuses on themes that give special meaning to the Christian vision of life and in this way serves the faith and culture and contributes to a fairer society.

- So, at best it is a spin off.The Banner talk 11:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the meat of the article is in the first two sections, which contains a total of two sources. The third section, which does contains a large number of references, is just a list of the non-notable, routine activities of the article subject. That kind of information belongs on their web site and not here; it is promotion of the activities of the centre, rather than encyclopedic info. In addition, the lede description of the centre as "trying to keep alive" the old spirit and so on, is clearly memorializing and promotional in nature. I was going to say merge to the University of Antwerp, but that article already contains the information in the first two sections. Thus, this article brings to the encyclopedia nothing valuable, save a listing of its regular, non-notsbale academic activities. So, delete.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize the seminar section's listing of non-notable items:

In 2003 UCSIA convened a seminar
in 2005 the Centre organized a seminar
In 2006 held a two-day workshop
in 2007-8 they subsidized four visiting scholars
in 2008 they held a conference
in 2009 they focused on "The Redemptive Power of Humor in Religion", whatever that is. Not encyclopedic.
in 2011 they sponsored a scholar to produce a book
in 2012 a book had coeditors from the centre, and also another book on Sports Governance, Development and Corporate Responsibility
in 2013 another book had coeditors form the centre
in 2014 a seminar was held
in 2015 and 2016, more coeditors (not publishing, mind you) of a couple books
in 2016 they brough an author in to lecture, and ran a workshop
a number of conferneces we co-sponsored, but that does not indicate that the conferences happened at the centre.

In sum, a very paltry list of routine academic, non-notable activities. As is evident, there is not much going on there to merit its notability as a centre... A "centre" that can only manage this many activities in thirteen years is pretty much a defunct centre.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither a spin off nor unsuccessful. Instead, like most centres of this type if it carefully thought out, before funding is secured. The idea that it has not achieved anything is nonsensical, just because the article doesn't have the content, and cant be proven unless an extensive conversation take place to determine if they have been successful. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 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 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wong & Ouyang

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

No evidence of any notability. Searches reveal little, but language differences may restirct a full search. Appears to be just another Architectural firm. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure the company will pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or not. The firm did existed, newspaper reported the wage cut of the firm as news (as one of the major firm of the city). However, i am not sure any in-depth coverage existed, such as architectural book that cover the work by the firm. Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is probably the most prominent architecture firm of Hong Kong origin. I lean towards assuming good faith that the two books on architectural history cited in the article has sufficient in-depth coverage. Deryck C. 14:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i saw such citation was added after the start of the afd discussion. Based on the book title and publisher they seem RS. Not sure the content is about the work and the firm or the firm only BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan:, @Matthew hk:, there's no doubt it is a large and well-established firm. The books mentioned in the article are available on Google Books. Only one of those references, Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015 passes the criteria for establishing notability, the others discuss the buildings with only a mention to the firm. At least one more reference is required. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. At least one other required and I am unable to find another. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP. Happy to change my !vote if another reference turns up. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The firm has significant projects and awards. Note the article could be considered to be a valid list-article of the works of the firm, because certainly a category could exist (i didn't check) to categorize the multiple individually notable works, and then by wp:CLNT it is valid to have a list-article corresponding to the category. It is far better to have one article about the firm which can be linked from multiple individual building articles, rather than repeating a whole description of the company at each of the separate articles. --Doncram (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The closing admin is likely to ignore your !vote above as you have not cited any reasons based on policies or guidelines. Also, we base a conclusion on notability on references. Can you provide at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is notable (i.e. have wiki article, have sourced description of the arch structure in the article), than having a centralized list, seem passing Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Matthew hk (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone lists are still subject to notability criteria. There are no indications that there are any sources that discuss/list the work of Wong & Ouyang. Creating stand-alone lists isn't a run-around on notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ertainly meets the requirements for keeping as a list of works, as the WP:GNG specifically provides for a list or coination article if the works are either less than notable or we don;t have enough information. But given theat there are probably articles about each major building, I think it's safeto say that a firm with such major works can beconsidered notable . Any reason the consensus accepts for notability is a good reason. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Zhenghua

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

Primary notability seems to be his claim to have founded a payment service about which we do not have an article . The refs are essentially PR DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi What is your reason for nominating this article for deletion? He is the founder and former CEO of Baidu Wallet and Finance and current CEO of UnPAY. see this article. MrInfo2012 Talk 05:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Zhang is the founder and CEO of UNPay at 30 years old. This company has international presence in payment system/ digital transaction industry. He is listed 40 Under 40 in Fortune. He has many other executive/ management roles in work experience.

SWP13 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to UnPAY, a horrible spammy article by the same page creator. Who I imagine is being paid.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide about this article ASAP. TheLongTone Please talk about this article because Zhang is one of the young entrepreneurs of China and we don't have any page about him. I try to remove advertising element of UnPAY. MrInfo2012 Talk 05:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at the sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.businessinsider.sg/UnPAY-in-talks-with-dubai-government-to-build-cashless-city/			About his product, not him.	✘ No
https://www.prunderground.com/UnPAY-supports-haier-laundrys-overseas-ventures-with-holistic-payment-solutions-2/00134728/			About his product, not him, quotes him once.	✘ No
https://t.sina.com.hk/news/article/20181107/0/2/40/UnPAY-and-President-of-Lithuania-In-Talks-on-Possible-Fintech-Cooperation-9400725.html	It's a press release.	Maybe yes for verifying stats but not notability.	All press releases will cover their topic in depth.	✘ No
https://t.sina.com.hk/news/article/20181107/0/2/40/UnPAY-and-President-of-Lithuania-In-Talks-on-Possible-Fintech-Cooperation-9400725.html	It's a press release.	Maybe yes for verifying stats but not notability.	All press releases will cover their topic in depth.	✘ No
http://fortune.com/2018/11/28/alipay-baidu-wallet-finance-UnPAY-digital-payments/			? It covers him a lot, but it's all in the context of his product.	? Unknown
http://tech.qq.com/a/20180912/104402.htm		It's listcruft opinion piece on a site which, as far as I can see, has no editorial oversight.	He's a small subsection of the list.	✘ No
http://iof.hexun.com/2015-01-17/172484209.html		? Unfamiliar with publication.	Mentions him once, about winning an award which doesn't appear to be notable per GNG.	✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.sg/the-fortune-global-tech-forum-UnPAY-wins-fortune-china-innovation-award-to-empower-digital-payment-4-0-worldwide/			Primary coverage is about his product, not him.	✘ No
http://sg.unpay.com/news/unpays-founder-zhang-zhenghua-named-in-fortune-chinas-2018-40-under-40-list/		Maybe for stats but not for assertions of notability.	Of course it is.	✘ No
https://www.fortuneconferences.com/fortune-global-tech-2018/2018-agenda/			Mentions him once and just asserts he spoke at a conference.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall, I'd say this, along with the lack of further sources turned up by my own searches, suggests failure of ANYBIO, furthermore I agree with TheLongTone that this stinks of undisclosed paid editing, particularly as an article for UnPay was submitted pretty soon after this AFD was started. All in all, it's a delete from me. SITH (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: After I saw that DGG said It isn't obvious that Zhenghua doesn't offer financial services, I created UnPAY to prove that he is working on this area and participated in China financial services. It's because I create that article immediately after Zhenghua. I think Zhenghua has enough credibility such as any Chinese entrepreneurs to have a Wikipedia page. MrInfo2012 Talk 12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look at that article separately. I point out that the question isn't credibility, but whether the sources are sufficient to meet our standards. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject has coverage in foreign media; just happens to mostly be in Chinese. https://www.baidu.com/s?wd="章政华" -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of the company has enough notability, also the company has significant coverage in reliable sources. Benyamin-ln (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question is solely of whether this meets our criteria for inclusion, and it does not. Sources are not sufficient in quality and the coverage is not significant enough in those sources that pass muster. As DGG rightly points out, it isn't an issue of credibility (or truth/accuracy/etc), it is a matter of passing the bar of WP:GNG, which this fails to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs don't confer notability and it looks Paid or COI. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niv Art Centre

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

No seeing in-depth coverage on the topic in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG (a lot of passing mentions though). GSS (talk|c|em) 10:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sathyamvada (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC) New references with in-depth coverage on the topic in multiple, independent, reliable sources and more content has been added. Kindly review the debate.[reply]

Sathyamvada (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per improvements made since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Rose (Trotskyist)

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

He appears to be a writer, WP:before is just showing what he wrote. 2 refs in the article neither suggesting notability, nothing on the web I can see supporting WP:V. Tagged for notability since 2013. Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is only a brief one which does not really spell out what he has done to make him notable. Vorbee (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete. I removed one source, since it led only to a non-notable op-ed he once wrote. The remaining source is a deadlink. I also removed three listed essays for which I could find no secondary discussion. His book seems to have gotten only one review. Writing essays. books does not make you notable unless the books and essays are. I can't find anything like a prifile, but John Rose is a very common name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:46, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vonn Ströpp

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

Non notable artist. Article is full of OR and possible hoax material. Tagged for notability since 2014. BLP concerns. Szzuk (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a hoax – there's some coverage in The i [5], Student BMJ [6] and a book published by Reaktion Books [7]. But I'm not sure the totality of coverage is really enough to be significant. The Student BMJs articles are mainly submitted and reviewed by students, and its biographical details on Von Stropp read like they're taken from the exhibition catalogue. The article in The i is a series of quotes by the owner of a gallery selling his work, so it seems a bit questionable whether it is truly independent of the subject. Hmm, really not sure on this one, so I'd be interested in some more views... --Qwfp (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too found some book sources, but none are in-depth mentions. Lacks SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly (company)

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The twelve sources shown are diverse, have editorial oversight and are substantial; I'm seeing additional and different coverage in 2019. Here I'm also seeing staff pieces at Forbes where usually we see contributor articles, suggesting the company really warrants that level of coverage. Worth keeping on the merits. DavidWestT (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DavidWestT:, I see you approved the article at AfC. It is difficult to judge the value and reliability of the sources, but I note that the company only started up in 2017. The company installs cartop screens at a single garage in San Francisco, and its 110,000 hours of drive time is a minute number, representing for example, 1100 cars at 100 hours each. This is a small, local company and I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Sources are passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Also fails WP:PROMO. Launch publicity does not equate to encyclopedia notability in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Below the line comment). Poking at this one a bit more, it does look like WSJ covered them a few times (e.g. here: [8]) at length). I see some other in-depth coverage as well that's not on the page at [9].

I respect your opinions, though, on any consensus. DavidWestT (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, at least not yet. All the refs are about its own publicity for itself, and WP shouldn't be adding to them. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Gentry

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

A promotional article about a fringe character. Tagged for notability since 2014. No refs in the article, before showing nothing of note. Szzuk (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - From a search, he seems to have done a lot, but still doesn't seem to meet WP:Artist or WP:NBIO. ManicSpider (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A check of WorldCat shows thatnone of their works are held in more than 2 or 3 libraries; this doesn;t cover all thegenres, but is I think representative. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Ford (painter)

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. A before isn't returning anything that says he's notable. Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw a few sources in a search. The best was this bio in a list of outsider artists. As the bio says, he was a banker, carpenter and soldier for most of his life, and took up painting afterwards. He had a couple of decent solo shows, but all together the coverage of his career does not establish anything beyond the regular practice of an artist. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 22:49, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to D. Woods. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day, Volume 1

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

The mixtape does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability as I could not find enough third-party, reliable coverage to support it having its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with D. Woods--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of information to merge other than its existence. Aoba47 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say redirect to D. Woods, but it's debatable whether the artist herself has any individual notability outside of Danity Kane, and could well be a candidate for a merge and redirect to that group's article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, though I will leave the question of whether or not the D. Woods article has enough notability for another editor and AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory of Our People

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

Hard pressed to find anything whatsoever about this magazine in both English and Spanish. Also, the fact the official site is hosted through blogspot doesn't instill me with hope. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:NMAG--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: NMAG is an essay, and either way, which aspect does it satisfy? Publishing articles doens't prove it's made a significant impact unless there are the sources to prove it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The mere act of publishing doesn't guarantee notability and no real notability is even claimed here and certainly not substantiated. The article seems more of a hanger to create a list of no less than 114 non-notable people in a list (which should be deleted by itself), including a single blue link that is to the wrong person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, including Spanish where it's either brief mentions or blog articles.--Pontificalibus 09:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 18:48, 24 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 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Rhoades

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

University athletic directors are rarely, if ever, notable. Not seeing anything satisfying WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an automatically notable position, no in depth sources. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than his employer's website to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles based on their current state. Independent, reliable sources are abound here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a discussion at WT:CFB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. A sample includes: 1) "Mack attack: Two years in, Baylor AD chasing challenges with gusto" Waco Tribune-Herald, 2) "There’s not much sadness that Mack Rhoades is leaving Mizzou" The Kansas City Star, 3) "Baylor AD Mack Rhoades: NCAA investigation will 'lead us where it leads us'" Associated Press, 4) "Univ. Of Missouri AD Mack Rhoades Shocks School By Leaving For Same Position At Baylor" Sports Business Daily, 5) "AD Mack Rhoades' surprising move from Missouri to Baylor: Three things to know" CBS Sports. The nomination is incorrect in citing WP:BIO, as it includes WP:BASIC that says meeting GNG is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG per sources referenced by Bagumba. ADs of Power Conference schools are notable more often than not; they are in charge of making newsworthy decisions for athletic departments whose revenues are in the hundreds of millions. There are 35 public universities with athletic department revenues higher than the NHL's Arizona Coyotes. Rhoades is particularly notable for his proximity to one of the most public scandals in college athletics in recent memory. —Ostealthy (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has served as athletic director at four Division I FBS universities (Baylor, Missouri, Houston, Akron) over the past 15 years. Passes WP:GNG. See, e.g., [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and many more. Cbl62 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator--I have found that athletic directors almost always produce enough press to surpass WP:GNG and that clearly has been shown to be the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Bagumba and Cbl62. Contrary to the nominator's statement, nearly all NCAA D-I athletic directors do indeed meet WP:GNG, which he would likely have discovered had he done a WP:BEFORE search prior to filing this AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bagumba and Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many many Division I athletic directors on Wikipedia, with nothing else to show for their name. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:24, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzi Unicem

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

Article version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buzzi_Unicem&direction=next&oldid=859752658

Non-notable business, fails notability requrements. References are both primary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beyond My Ken for inviting me to contribute. (The page history seems to suggest that I created the article which, though I have no particular recollection of it, seems perfectly plausible.) But perhaps you could explain why, having read the article, you believe this company to be non-notable? Which notability requrements do you think it fails to meet? I would then be able to form a view on whether it should be retained or not. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, WP:ORGSIG: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." There are no independent sources cited in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable to me, and properly documented after I added three inline citations.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the rigorous WP:ORGCRIT criteria required for companies. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question In what regard does this article fail to meet WP:ORGCRIT criteria, when the three independent references are considered? Doubtless there is more in Italian, but it is not easy for me to use those.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two are standard company profiles, which do not go to showing notability. The third has two mere mentions of the company: one in the headline, and one in the body, with no elaboration whatsoever. The other two sources are primary. All this is sufficient to show the existence of the company, but not its encyclopedic notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, easy to source — I've spent some time adding content to the article, and it should be easy for others to continue to improve the article. I've put a link to the original version nominated for deletion up top so you can take a look at comparison to current version. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Cholensky

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

Not notable and only close, first-hand sources even try to establish notability. PROD denied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying that I did not "deny" the PROD. The article was PROD'ed in 2014 and the PROD was objected to, thus the article is not eligible for rePRODing. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything at all. The political party she co-chaired has apparently 1500 members. valereee (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being co-chair of a minor political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — it can get a person over the bar if they can be reliably sourced to enough media coverage about them to clear WP:GNG for it, but does not guarantee an article to every chair of every political party just because their existence technically verifies on the political party's self-published website. But two of the three footnotes here are primary sources, and the one that is real media is not journalism about her being co-chair of a political party, but just a self-submitted paid inclusion engagement announcement in the classifieds of her local hometown newspaper. None of this is the kind of sourcing we require to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I'm not finding any evidence of anything better either. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Last two relists have not resulted in further input, so doesn't seem worth relisting again. Michig (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4 Corners (group)

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

Unreferenced for ten years and no indication of notability. Very few sources available online (see the talk page for three (two deadlinks) from 2009). Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and should be deleted. AD ^Talk 07:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks signficant sources and doesn't appear to pass WP:NBAND even with vague, unsourced, mention of reaching the NZ top 40. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from Delete for the given reasons above). They meet number 2 on WP:NBAND (only one needed), being on the top 40 twice [18][19]. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I added some refs to the page corroborating some of its assertions and a Waikato Times article about their tour of Laos and nomination at the NZ music awards (weak WP:NBAND 4 and 8 respectively).[20] (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as per User:Dushan Jugum. Sheldybett (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split votes (not counting nom.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ultimately, WP:N is a consequence of WP:V: if there are no reliable sources about this party, we have no verifiable content to put in an article. Sandstein 08:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pragatisheel Bahujan Samaj Party

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

Declined PROD. Original PROD reason from StraussInTheHouse was "Fails WP:NORG due to lack of multiple, sustained, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources."

Declined by Soman with comment "Held 4 seats in state legislature, thus easily passes minimum notability criteria for political parties. Lack of references is not, in itself, cause for deletion".

As we do not currently have an SNG for political parties that I am aware of, we default to NORG, which specifically mentions political parties. NORG requires significant coverage in independent sources, and if they do not exist for this minor splinter party (I didn't find any either), then we cannot maintain the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per my original rationale and PMC’s expansion on it. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - parties represented in legislatures are notable, and it is an established in-house practice not to delete articles on parties represented in legislatures. Article now sourced. When reflecting of NORG, it must be understood that the online media landscape in India (and in particular, in regards to regional media in a state like MP) looked very different in 1999 than 2019. Having a reliable source on the legislative representation ought to be sufficient for retaining the article, keeping in mind that the BSP split would have been well covered in regional, print media at the time. --Soman (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom that the subject failed WP:NORG, the article is completely based on WP:OR none of the 2 sources mentioned in the article mention what the article claims. Based on my own independent research on the subject, there is absolute lack of reliable sources about the subject. the WP:ORGCRITE is miles away from being met. Per NORG the subject needs significant coverage in "multiple" independent, reliable secondary sources. Soman please remember WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you should not use information in the article as evidence to claim notability without verifying the information yourself and adding reliable third party sources to back up your claim. Assertion of notability lacking reliable sources that can prove WP:ORGCRITE is not helping the AfD discussion in any way.--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is Wikipedia used as the source?? --Soman (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your keep vote above, you have used the article as it stands right now as a basis. The subject right now, ~~cannot even be verified,~~ notability is far off. You stated "...represented in legislatures" can you provide a source that states the same ? I am aware of the source situation in India, I am equally aware of the promotional editing done by the members of the non notable political parties in the area. ~~The article is "not" sourced right now, it has fake refs.~~ I am willing to reconsider my delete vote, if we can find sources that can claim passing of WP:ORGCRITE, from what I searched, there isn't any. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC) [Struck based on below 13:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

I'm not generally here to argue with people supporting my AfD nom, but the sources Soman added do support the facts in the article (do a Ctrl+F search for "Pragatisheel"). That being said, given that both are government reports and aren't even that in-depth, I still don't think they support the claim of notability under NORG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note, I stand corrected. Might have mistyped the spelling during Ctrl +F. The parliament journal mentions the split. And that is the only passing mention it had, which is not sufficient for WP:ORGCRIT--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that, we fully agree. (Side note for anyone reading: the second source is actually worse than I thought. It only provides the names of the four people mentioned in the article and doesn't include any details about them or the party they split to form). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner (software)

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

Obscure utility software that shipped along with just a few of the products listed at List_of_Garmin_products Not suitable to merge since listing product details of each of those would be non-encyclopedic Cander0000 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand or agree with your logic against merging, but I do agree with the delete. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't appear to be notable - no independent references. About a Garmin product from ~2001, not Google's Spanner (database). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I found two book sources ([21] [22]), but neither constitutes significant coverage. This page should not redirect to List of Garmin products, because Spanner (database) would make a better redirect target. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do NOT redirect to Spanner (database); that's a totally unrelated piece of software. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:42, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kamalu

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

Kamalu is not yet a notable musician. I have to admit as a BYU alumni, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who served as a missionary for the Church, and a fan of musicals I want to be able to keep this article. However Kamalu has made a few student productions but nothing of true lasting impact. He is not yet notable, mayube one day, but not yet. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the only claim of importance is winning a student award; [23] is a local interest story. Neither a university press release nor his own website count for the purposes of GNG, and the American Idol article linked doesn't mention him at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and Power~enwiki. ManicSpider (talk) 11:37, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repl.it

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

no evidence of notability. Every ref is from their own website. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Yesterday i tagged delete under csd A7 and someone removed the tag. It has been rejected two times in the draft space and not notable.AD ^Talk 04:19, 6 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 04:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into Draft:Repl.it (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). If the subject ever becomes notable, the draft can be accepted. —teb728 t c 07:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficent coverage in independent sources: 1,2, 3, 4.--Pontificalibus 11:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed delete message from Repl.it because of above Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosrod (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Not English -

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. References above are run-of-the-mill mentions or based on announcements, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Pontificalibus (talk · contribs) and Mosrod (talk · contribs). The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Source like this and this provide analysis about Repl.it such as: "In a simplified way, REPL.it allows educators to create a tool like CodeCademy on their own—just not as student friendly. If the teacher-friendly REPL.it and the learner-friendly CodeCademy could merge their platforms, that would be significant." And (translated from Spanish to English in Google Translate): "Repl.it can be a great tool for students and teachers, offering a simple and interactive environment. The best of all is that you can share your code with a link and return to it whenever you need it." Cunard (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but permit a proper article actually using the few references from the above list that are relevant. the references are mostly mentions, like the one from Lifehacker which is a name on a list, or the many that are just pr o about initial funding, which is not usable for notability per NCORP. I'd normally say fix in a situation like that, but experience shows articles like this almost never do get fixed. But if {{U|Cunard|} wants to take responsibility for doing it, then I'd support keeping and letting him do it. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav People's Army withdrawal from Bosnia (1992)

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

This subject is already extensively covered between Yugoslav People's Army, Bosnian War, Prijedor ethnic cleansing, Bijeljina massacre, Siege of Sarajevo, 1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla, and to a lesser extent in other articles on related battles in the conflict, such as Battle of Kupres (1992). Moreover, RS cited by the article don't place any specific importance on the withdrawal of JNA forces as a holistic event, providing little motivation to further cover it as a subject in an article separate from Bosnian War and Yugoslav People's Army. Furthermore, this article omits mention of massacres conducted by JNA-controlled forces and of the JNA's role in starting the Siege of Sarajevo which would eventually become the longest-lasting siege of a capital city in modern history, as well as stating without citation that After Bosnia and Herzegovina gained independence the Yugoslav People's Army received orders from Belgrade to withdraw from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and referring to what in the article Bosnian War is called a "kidnapping" of Alija Izetbegovic as an "arrest"; taken together, this leads me to believe that this article is essentially a POV fork of other articles on the Bosnian War. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A spin-off should have more detail on its subject than the parent, not less. The article is duplicative as the content exists in the articles linked in the nom. I'm not sure what this article adds to the encyclopedia. Levivich (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Levivich and WP:CONTENTFORK. A redirect could be warranted, but am not sure of the best target.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sayh Dibba

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

Non-notable, unverifiable article on an apparent field. Two major problems with keeping this article:

Per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features may have articles if significant content has been written about them. I was not able to find any indication that this is the case with regards to this area, and since we only have an English name and not an Arabic one, our native-language search is hampered.
As has been established in a number of recent AfDs, the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates is at best questionable (See Alexandermcnabb's commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zidm), so sourcing an entry solely to it is a failure of WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a reference to the Dibba plain here. If "Sayh" just means "plain" then it is possible that this meets WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, that is the exact book I called out in my nomination as utterly unreliable; please read the comments in the AfD I linked. Relying on it for anything is a failure of WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't been aware that it was the same one but on closer inspection I see you're right. I move Delete on that basis. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fujairah. The most I can find are two sites that have basically the same information - geo coordinates, the type of plain it is that's about all. Even with the book mention above, I don't think this passes WP:GEOLAND. Aurornisxui (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Looked some more, thought about it, Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND.[reply]
Delete unverifiable geographic location that has no coverage in reliable media. I also note that the page has been this way for more than a decade. Aurornisxui the sources that you found with "basically the same info" most likely are Wikipedia mirrors. There is nothing verifiable to merge anywhere. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: No, they were not wikipedia mirrors, they were map sites. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aurornisxui, thanks for the reply. Many map sites populate data after crawling through coordinates from Wikipedia and other map sites. So they may still fall under WP:MIRROR. In any case the map sites are not enough for notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:09, 17 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator

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

Insufficiently notable. The book has a dismissive footnote from Leslie S. Klinger and is pooh-poohed by Duncan Wu (both cited in the current article) but otherwise only has fleeting mentions in RS. This does not meet the threshold of WP:NBOOK. A mention of the book would however be due at Frankenstein authorship question. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks serious reviews/notice that would confer the notability on the book itself. jps (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find anything that even comes near to meeting WP:NBOOK. --tronvillain (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:FRINGE book with no particular notability. Two people spending a moment to say "this book is bullshit" and a third going, "the author exists and is one of a total of four people to advance this dubious view" do not make for WP:NBOOK level coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what a Fringe book is; books that relate to fringe topics are not excluded from Wikipedia. Publisher is established, author is academically sound, book has an ISBN number. Notability is a spectrum and the bar can be low. The authorship of Frankenstein has been debated since the book was written. While the view that Frankenstein was written by Shelley rather than Mary Shelley is not a mainstream view; it is a view and debated in Frankenstein Unbound by an academic. Such books, more of academic viewpoints, may not receive widespread support or reviews but given the publisher and author can be included in Wikipedia per our own guides. And believe me I don't like the idea that a book like Frankenstein attributed to a woman may have been written by her husband.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does it meet WP:NBOOK? Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NB: "For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice..." and use "common sense" and there "will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear..." I look at the publisher's reputation, the academic training of the author, and the fact that the subject matter has been discussed since Frankenstein was first published and I have to put aside my own position and suggest the book is notable enough to include. And I don't see a good reason to not include. (We aren't short of space). I've seen many comments concerning this book that have to do with the position that the book is Fringe. Fringe does not apply to whether a topic can be included in Wikipedia in the case of books and given publisher and academic qualifications there is no reason think it applies here Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely common sense dictates that a book which has garnered no significant attention by a guy who has garnered no significant attention on a fringe subject that nobody serious takes seriously ... is not worthy of an article. Let's go through the criterita that WP:NB suggests for academic books:

whether the book is published by an academic press - no
how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media - hardly at all
the number of editions of the book - none since the first
whether one or more translations of the book have been published - no
how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area - it is hardly cited
whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions - no

On every count, policy is guiding us to delete this article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But then again a topic that is once again being discussed with enough weight to interest a reputable publisher is of interest enough to be included here? That's also common sense? I am not suggesting this is a great academic work at this point simply that it meets a low threshold for inclusion. I refer back to my points above. (I haven't checked the institutions that are teaching Frankenstein so cannot comment on use for teaching). With not much more to say for my part; I have to rush off. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkichi Narita

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (no ping as he's no longer active) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Nagae is also currently running.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. In this case I found no Google book results. He is absent from the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography as well as Photography in Japan 1853-1912. He is mentioned in Photography for Everyone, but only trivially. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello? Narita isn't well known these days even among the (fairly high) number of 328. He's the creator of photographs that would appear in exhibitions of work from the 20s and 30s, or at least those exhibitions whose curators aren't dazzled (or don't want viewers to be dazzled) by a very short list of stars. I'd be surprised if anyone would bother to create an article about him, but stranger things have happened. Meanwhile, for search engines to suggest that there's an article on Narita and for there to turn out to be no more than the feeblest stub is an annoyance. Delete without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article on the man. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not likely to ever be more than a stub. Even his date of death is unknown. I was unable to find additional sources in JSTOR or Google Books.LoosingIt (talk) 09:42, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Guasch

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

Not all actresses are notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on reliable, secondary, 3rd party coverage. This is doubly so for articles on living people. The two sources are the subject's own website, which is clearly not secondary or 3rd party, and IMDb, which is not at all reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started reorganising this article, and have created tables for screen and theatre performances. There is still a lot of content that needs to be deleted or placed in a suitable section. Looking at the Spanish version of this article, it seems that she has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable shows (or anyway shows that are blue-linked in the Spanish Wikipedia) - hopefully it will be possible to find references for them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR .Went through her Her Spanish wiki article and it is also tagged and further none of her roles are significant hence fails WP:NACTOR upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:53, 31 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a possible re-creation as suggested by Hoary. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Nagae

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (no ping as he's no longer active) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. In this case I found no Google book results. He is absent from the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography as well as Photography in Japan 1853-1912. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello? Nagae isn't well known these days even among the (fairly high) number of 328. He's probably most noteworthy for a prewar project of photographing 国宝, national treasures. These are usually photographed in the most reverent way; and, given the ideological climate of the period in which Nagae did this, it's inconceivable that he'd have photographed them otherwise. If the photographs lack irreverence or originality, it's most unlikely that they'll cause a stir if republished or reexhibited. This being so, it's unlikely that anybody would want to develop this article. Meanwhile, for search engines to suggest that there's an article on Nagae and for there to be no more than the feeblest stub is an annoyance. Delete without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article on the man. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's little chance of expansion beyond the current substub, unfortunately. Bakazaka (talk) 09:45, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wade (British actor)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not just the ability to nominally verify that he's had acting roles -- it's the ability to reliably source that his having of roles has led to his receiving distinctions, such as winning or getting nominated for a major acting award and/or receiving enough press coverage about his acting to clear WP:GNG. But the only reference here is a simple filmography list in an IMDb-like directory, not reliable source coverage about the subject. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In honor of his Dr. Who work, Exterminate! Exterminate! Fails NACTOR and good old GNG. The only significant role I see is in Little Secret. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and the above. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as argued above does not meet notability requirements (the page suggests his most significant roles in limited release direct to video productions). Dunarc (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:52, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toos van Holstein

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

Article ona Dutch artist, without proper sources for the past 12 years. The only web sources I could find were commercial or wiki sites. I saw one decent book reference, and a couple of glancing mentions in news items. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are books used as sources, but the references are unclear. The books can be looked up by ISBN on WorldCat. I think having someone fluent in Dutch look at this is important. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to give more complementary information about Toos van Holstein and I hope that by this the deletion of the lemma about Toos van Holstein can be put out of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harm Witteveen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harm Witteveen, the material you added had no sources, so I have reverted it as we do not add speculative material without sources. See the explantion I left you on your talk page. If you have independent sources, add them to the page. Also, someone named Harm Witteveen in real life is strongly associated with the article subject, so if you happen to be connected to Toos, please declare your connection per WP:COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Briljanten kunstenaar van het jaar"is part of the "Kunstenaar van het Jaar" (artist of the year) award, a popular vote to select the most popular artist in the Netherlands. The winners tend to be notable, for example, Marlene Dumas won in 2015. I'm having difficulties finding independent, reliable sources about van Holstein though. All the sources provided seem to be exhibition catalogues (co-authored) by a major contributor to the article. I have not been able to access these books, with one exception: https://issuu.com/donkigotte/docs/20130411_brochure_toos_def. It contains a two-page bio and an introductory text about the exhibition. It lists exhibitions in the Musee St. Paul de Vence, Museum het Peetershuis in Gennep, the Martinikerk (Franeker) [nl] in Franeker and Fort Rammekens [nl] in Vlissingen. I can't quite make out which museum in Saint-Paul-de-Vence the catalogue refers to; there are several, the most notable of which is the Fondation Maeght, but from what I can tell, it is likely the Musée municipal de Saint Paul instead. My take on those is that they are all rather minor exhibition spaces, not significant or highly selective museums with a reputation for curatorial excellence. Vexations (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this excellent research. As you point out, all of the article sources are written by an author named Harm van Witteveen. ::It seems like a clear notability fail, as there is no coverage in multiple independent publications. Instead, we a single author who ::wrote all the coverage, and a WP account by the same name who wrote the article and !votes above at AfD. Seems like classic ::promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read nl:Toos van Holstein, and failed to persuade myself (noting that all the citations were self-published) from what it says in main text that the artist would pass WP:NBIO in English WP. A Google search turned up no independent in-depth WP:RS sources. I concur with the analysis by Vexations, above: WP:TOOSOON at best. Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is an article on the dutch WP (here) but unfortunately (her paintings look pretty amazing, why isnt she held in notable collections?) it doesnt have any more. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India News Haryana

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all given sources are either primary sources or routine coverage of executive changes in industry magazines of dubious reliability. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news channel is having similar notability that Zee Punjabi is having because both are regional channel and very popular amoung regional channels.--Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, I don't really think Zee Punjab Haryana Himachal passes WP:GNG either, at least in its current state. One source of dubious reliability is not generally considered enough to prove notability. It does look like there may be a few more possible sources due to some ongoing legal battles their parent company is under (see [24] and [25]) but I don't really know if that's enough to show notability in general. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Till date Wikipedia does not have fixed criteria for media because even Wikipedia rely on these media houses and their news for any kind of references. These news channels because of such credibility passes notability test. Also these media houses are not promoting themselves on Wikipedia. Even Google and Facebook like platforms uses these news channels for promotion. They don't require Wikipedia for promotion. Also these news channels are registered and accredited media houses and contributing alot in Press.And I dont think legal battles prove notability? See you also relying on Hindustan Times for proving notability. Hope you are understanding what I mean?--Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a WP:GNG and WP:NCORP failure, with must more emphasis being on the former. The issue is there is a lack of in-depth, significant (WP:SIGCOV) coverage that actually puts forward India News Haryana as having a claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @SamHolt6 I have added more references and Add to that let me inform you that India News Haryana can be viewed in all DTH operators and cable TV operators. It has high reach. Through DTH it can be viewed in Himachal, Haryana, J&K, Punjab, Chandigarh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - Notability is minimal and article is non-neutral. Allow a neutral editor to write a neutral article. The current editor has acknowledged being an employee of a PR firm that has represented other clients, so that a disclaimer of conflict of interest in this article is implausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Itv Network (India), lacking significant sources required for a standalone article, issue of apparent WP:COI creation of article is also a concern, suggest that parent article can be further developed before any more of its channels are broken out. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Crabbe

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

An article on this subject was deleted before. Nothing has changed since then. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. All sources are of the WP:ROUTINE variety, no significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either primary or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Minor league player and coach. Fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL and coverage is typical sports reporting. Don't believe winning a Rookie League manager of the year award is enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 14:56, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. While there is a division of opinion regards a straight keep or merge it is clear that there is no consensus to delete this page. Further discussion regarding a possible merge can proceed on the relevant talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Litfield Farm

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

Page created by a sockpuppet promoting people and places related to Staniforth. Outside of architecture interesting to the locale, it doesn't appear to have any significant events or news coverage related to it. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I note that this is a Grade II listed building. There is a list of Listed buildings in England, which contains lists of listed buildings by grade, and then by county and locality. However, there is no List of Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire or any locality within it. If there was, I would probably say Merge to that list. But until that list does exist, I would say Keep this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire and start a list there. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed building. Meets the critera of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 374,000 listed buildings in England and Wales. An assumption of notability for the 8% that are Grade I or Grade II* might be ok, but I really don't think it's reasonable to say the remaining 340,000+ that are Grade II are all 'inherently notable'. Looking through the archives of Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), WP:GEOFEAT was added to before it was promoted to a guideline and this section did not achieve consensus. I don't think it meets WP:GNG: The official listing is one reliable source and refs 1 & 2 of the present article are both copies of this, but I can't find any others in a web search; ref 3 is not a reliable source and ref 4 is a WP:primary source. Maybe it's worth a sentence at most in the article for Ridgeway, Derbyshire but I don't think it's worth merging as that would unbalance that article. And I don't think we should keep an article on something just because it could be worth an entry in a list article that doesn't yet exist. --Qwfp (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire and start a list there. I just did that, I moved it and it is now the start of a list article. It seems to me silly to keep discussing this AFD, just do it and let's all move on to something more important. This AFD should be closed "Move" to ratify that this has been done. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved it back. Please do not move articles while an AfD is underway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If merged or moved to a list, it should be Listed buildings in Eckington, Derbyshire - lists we already have are grade I or II* in a county or all grades in a city, town, civil parish or unparished area, only splitting further if a list becomes too long for one article. Peter James (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article is not about the listed building, which is a farm house. It is about the farm, which is a settlement (it seems it was once a hamlet). Sure, one notable thing about the farm is that it contains a listed farm house, but we certainly shouldn't redirect this to a list of buildings. We need to judge this by WP:GEOLAND "Populated places without legal recognition" and if sources are insufficient redirect to Ridgeway, Derbyshire, where it can be mentioned along with the other settlements already mentioned there, such as Ridgeway Moor and Highlane.--Pontificalibus 14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A farm is not a settlement. It is a collection of buildings, one of which is listed. WP:GEOFEAT therefore applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those collection of buildings are houses, let and sold seperately from the farmhouse. This is why sources refer to "Litfield" as well as "Litfield farm". The borderline between a hamlet, an estate and a "farm" can be an unclear one, but sources support this being a populated place.--Pontificalibus 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely splitting hairs. A farm is usually understood as a farm, a complex of buildings, and is therefore covered by WP:GEOFEAT and not WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't matter whether only one of those buildings is listed for that to count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as I said sources show there are a number of houses in addition to the farm house, and that it is refered to as a named place without the "farm" suffix.--Pontificalibus 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have found a reliable source identifying Litfield as a hamlet and added this to the article. It seems the other neighbouring settlements now subsumed into Ridgeway such as Birley Hay, Ford and Highlane clung to their seperate identities into the late 19th century and so are retained on the first OS maps of the area, but Litfield seems to have been the smallest of these and by then was mapped as a farm.--Pontificalibus 14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to suggest that a separate Litfield article might be in order (although only if it was ever a truly recognised place), but not that this article about a complex of buildings that includes a listed building should be merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources clearly show that "Litfield Farm" in the 19th century consisted of a number of houses and so was still a settlement. I don't think it would be useful to have two articles on the same populated place, each covering different time periods. Much more logical to have a Litfield farmhouse article for the listed building, but as I've said I don't beleive that would pass WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 15:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many large farms had multiple cottages for the workers. It doesn't make them a real settlement, any more than a university or a barracks, say, is a settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources available show that occupants did not work on the farm. Regardless, we're going around circles because the fact is niether Litfield Farm, Litfield farmhouse nor Litfield are notable and should all be redirected to Ridgeway, Derbyshire.--Pontificalibus 10:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ridgeway, Derbyshire. Having searched for sources and examined maps, I conclude that this place fails WP:GNG and thus WP:GEOLAND, which says a redirect to the more "the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" is warranted. Also, if it was renamed Litfield farmhouse to be about the listed building, that would also fail WP:GNG, and a merge of that to Ridgeway, Derbyshire would not be inappropriate.--Pontificalibus 15:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above information regarding Wikipedia:GEOLAND.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is essentially about the listed building, and therefore notable DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There was a substantial expansion on 25 January, which somewhat calls into question earlier opinions. Sandstein 11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross of Honor

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

Despite some effort I have had difficulty finding anything that indicates this is a notable award. It seems no more notable then any number of other minor and society awards given out by members. Nor can I find any meaningful coverage to indicate its awarding is considered news worthy. It seems less notable then the Silver Centennial Pin Award from Haddonfield Lions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, I have also struggled to find any reliable sources or significant coverage outside the United Daughters of the Confederacy site. It does not appear notable enough to have its own article. The section on the United Daughters of the Confederacy appears to be more appropriate for the limited information we have. Garuda28 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside of the UDC. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R, as it appears to be a legitimate search term within the broader subject. ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I have only ever heard of it in connection with the UDC (in fact I had never heard of it until I read about it on our article about the UDC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:GNG. Its history is discussed in an antiques column here at the Tri-City Herald, a 2013 dedication ceremony involving the medals rates a column here at the Washington Post, it is included in the special collections at the University of Central Florida, and it is described here at The Post and Courier as a "black market collector's item" targeted by anti-Confederate protests. It gets a brief mention here in a Civil War encyclopedia as an equivalent to the North's GAR medal. Also, the fact that it is one of the markers available from the Department of Veterans Affairs, as mentioned in the article, points towards notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note the GAR medal does not have an article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if it did it looks like it would also meet WP:GNG. Out of curiosity I was just looking up the GAR medal, and its history is surprisingly interesting (the design was similar enough to the Medal of Honor to piss off quite a few MoH holders). PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of your sources is a blog, and being part of a museums collection means nothing, I could donate my collection to a museum. So we are left with a page about its value as an antique (again not really establish any real notability) and some stuff about the use of the emblem (not the medal) on tomb stones, thus this means (at best) merging with List of Confederate monuments and memorials or the UDC page (at best).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two of them are blogs (Tri-City Herald and WaPo), but they are not personal blogs, and fall within the scope of WP:NEWSBLOG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all the useful information about the medal were brought into one place, the amount of text could easily fit into the larger article about the organization. According to WP:SUBARTICLE, I don't think this medal needed to be spun out into its own article. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PohranicniStraze. I also did my own quick Google search and found this WP:SECONDARY source: [26], which says:

The Southern Cross of Honor award originated on 13 October 1862 as an act of the Confederate Congress to recognize the courage, valor, and good conduct of officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the Confederate Army. Later, this award became the Cross of Military Service, which is awarded to men who, in addition to having a Confederate ancestor, served in the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, World War I, or World War II.

I'm pretty sure it is legit. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is not the same award as this one was established in 1899. This is an awarded given by the UDC, not the CSA. Your text may refer to Confederate Medal of Honor Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: It's the same metal. I'm not sure why there are two different dates. The early date certainly makes more sense if it is an award for valor issued during the war. The site I gave does mention the UDC at the top, so the award is definitely connected more to them more than the CSA. Perhaps because the UDC was formed long after the war, either (1) They issued the awards rather than the CSA (or in addition to)--a bit strange, but possible, since the CSA was disbanded (2) They formed a list of issued metals in the absence of the CSA records. This is all speculation on my part. Possibly a call to one of the libraries that has them would easily straighten out the date issue, or maybe some of the RS explains it better. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same? It seems that the Confederate Medal of Honor was never issued, and long after some were minted. By an organisation linked to the UDC. Thus any confusion may be the result of that. Or it may be an attempt to claim false legitimacy by claiming to be something it is not (and evidence they are in fact the same award, other then the UDC's own claims?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is the same. [27] only mentions the Southern Cross of Honor. Nowhere does it say anything about the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award. I do not know why you bring up the Confederate Medal of Honor which is not mentioned in the article. We are only talking about the Southern Cross of Honor--the award created by the Confederacy and used by the UDC as mentioned in the article [28]. It's the same award. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this should be an argument for merge anyway, if they are the same why two separate articles?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article I talk about is just the one award the Southern Cross of Honor [29]. It is not two different awards. It does not mention the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award entirely, and not relevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This [[30]] makes it clear they are two separate medals.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reference talks about multiple different metals. But the only one that matters here is the one award, the Southern Cross of Honor. The WP:RS I provided, [31], clearly mentions it. It is the same metal that we have been discussing as to whether it has WP:RS, and it does indeed, [32] and the RS mentioned above and in the article. It was apparently established by the CSA in 1862 and issued by the UDC in 1899. It has nothing to do with the Confederate Medal of Honor that is related to the sons--not the daughters. Let's just focus on the RS for the Southern Cross of Honor and not worry about the Confederate Medal of Honor which is a different unrelated metal, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1862 act of the Confederate Congress simply authorized the issuance of unnamed decorations (medals and badges) for bravery. However, due to wartime exigencies, no medals were actually given out (except for the Davis Guard Medal, a special case). Instead, after a year had passed, the Army decided to create a Roll of Honor to recognize deserving officers and men (and one woman). After the war, the UDC created the Southern Cross of Honor which was given out to anyone who served honorably.

It is comparable to the Grand Army of the Republic Medal, issued by the fraternal organization the Grand Army of the Republic. Note that we don't have an article about the GAR Medal, even though it is arguably more prominent. Note further that the SCV also claims that their CMOH was authorized by the same 1862 law, even though they did not begin minting their medal until 1977. Since the text of the law was open ended, I suppose that any entity could start issuing medals and say they were authorized to do so. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source you provided, "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950"[33], includes an introduction which you're quoting. The first part of that intro is copied verbatim from the UDC's website.[34] It's likely that the rest of the introduction is also sourced to the UDC. So I do not think it qualifies as an independent, secondary source.Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a nn commemorative award; some of the article is self-sourced to UDC. The other sources are in passing or blogs. "Confederate Medal of Honor" redirect to Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans), established in 1977. So it's not the same award. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to the Daughters article if any reliable sources exist. Every substantive source currently in this article is affiliated or unreliable (and in some cases both). Guy (Help!) 23:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Daughters of the Confederacy. To whatever extent there's a claim of notability here, WP:NOPAGE applies. It fits very sensibly into the parent article. This article appears to rely almost exclusively on primary sources, so there's not really anything to merge. Don't see any real need to delete the history, but also don't feel strongly about it. At very least the further reading section could be useful when trying to add sources to the main article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I added a couple secondary refs to the UDC article. Redirect, rather than merge, seems most sensible now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I see quite a few votes for Redirect or Delete after multiple WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources on the subject have been identified:

Mississippi Library archives: Giambrone, Jeff T. (2013). "Southern Cross of Honor Records at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History". The Primary Source. 32 (2). doi:10.18785/ps.3202.03. Retrieved June 23, 2018., which includes the entire article about the Southern Cross as a PDF.
Library of Virginia: "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950 United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor, Records 43275". ead.lib.virginia.edu. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
Peterson, Bo. "Three iron crosses honoring Confederate veterans have been stolen from historic Sheldon church near Beaufort". Post and Courier. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
Library of Southern Florida: "United Daughters of the Confederacy Medal Collection, 1899-1968 | UCF Special Collections". ucfarchon.fcla.edu. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
Tucker, Spencer C. (2013-09-30). American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [6 volumes]: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851096824.
U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs Administration, National Cemetery. "Pre-World War I Era Headstones and Markers - National Cemetery Administration". www.cem.va.gov. Retrieved 2019-01-07.:

The inscription on the special style for Civil War Confederate is also limited. The Southern Cross of Honor is automatically inscribed at the top. The name is arched, followed by abbreviated military organization and dates of birth and death. No additional items can be inscribed. If a flat marker is desired for a Confederate soldier, the Southern Cross of Honor can be inscribed if requested... [includes picture]

7. "Code of Virginia". Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved 14 June 2016.:

§ 18.2-176. Unauthorized wearing or displaying on motor vehicles of any button, insignia or emblem of certain associations or societies or of Southern Cross of Honor.

* * *

(b) No person shall wear any Southern Cross of Honor when not entitled to do so by the regulations under which such Crosses of Honor are given.

8. Inscoe, John. The Civil War in Georgia. University of Georgia Press, 2011. p. 203. -- Page 203 is here

9. City of Grove, Oklahoma: [35]

10. James Madison University: [36]

11. Kentucky Historical Society: [37]

12. numerous items coming from this Washington University in St. Louis library search: [38]

I do not understand how you can vote that way, when notability has been established by these sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that library calalouge entries are RS for notability (especialy as they are donated collection). Nor is a law, it shows it exists, not that it is notable. Not (in fact) would the fact people are allowed to have it inscribed on crosses. In fact most of this look pretty trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 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) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per above—fails GNG. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its part of history. UDC was once an important organization that gave this award to veterans having distinguished themselves in the service of the Confederacy, like Belle Boyd. You will find it on markers and monuments. Its protected by Virginia law. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but none of that is related to notability for Wikipedia purposes. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable enough for an article. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely due to the hefty research performed by the editors above. It looks like there is now a great deal more material to add to the page, making it much more useful to readers. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep though. It must satisfy WP:GNG, which it still does not appear to do. Garuda28 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/redirect~~. I've reviewed the sources in the article and none of them that are independent are about the medal specifically. They just mention its existence and perhaps list honorees. The best source listed above devotes only three short sentences to it.[39] Therefore, in my opinion, it does not meet WP:GNG. It would be more suitable as a section of the main UDC article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found additional sources and added to the article. With other changes since the start of this AfD, the article is now probably developed enough to pass WP:GNG. Mobi Ditch (talk) 10:14, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Ardell

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

BLP all the references are to his own publications Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a claim that he helped spark the wellness movement.[40] It also has a few other things that could at a stretch be considered notable; Healthy America Fitness Leaders Award; member of the board of trustees of the National Wellness Institute for over a decade. I am not seeing any indication that these achievements are particularly notable however. Considering this I expected to see a bit more in reliable sources. There is an article in Acta Salus Vitae, which is an obscure czech journal (the article is only cited once according to google scholar) that has a two paragraph section [41] and a reasonable mention in [this https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-35061/11_miller_1_05.pdf] (looks like a German open access publication). Overall not terribly overwhealming for some of the claims made. What all of these have in common, along with a recent story in The Christian post,[42] are mentions to his book High Level Wellness. So I would ideally say to redirect it to the book, but we don't have an article on that and even a loose google search[43] goes to other peoples writings on the subject, so not even sure that is as notable as suggested. For completeness there are very breif mentions in relation to other "gurus" in the Sydney Morning Herald[44] and New York Times Magazine.[45] AIRcorn (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 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) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many things wrong with this article but it comes down to lack of notability or reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search does not find adequate independent Rs to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:27, 14 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Keller

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

Beyond the multiple issues in the template, this is really a GNG. I even tried using my rudimentary Russian skills to find things—which, in an ironic twist—led me to the Russian page where she’s also being proposed for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources that lead to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 6 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) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have gotten a few magazine covers, but I didn't find any independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NMODEL. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:40, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wirex

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Brahiim123 with no other contributions outside this topic. PROD removed by a user with two edits: Special:Contributions/Vance Carver. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My search only found the typical crypto blogs which are not reliable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 14 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 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Spangler

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

BLP without references other than her own material Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Believe her writings allow her to meet WP:NAUTHOR.Sandals1 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of her books, Breastfeeding: A Parent’s Guide, is now in its 9th edition, has been in print since 1985, is the subject of multiple reviews, and is recommended / given out to new parents. It's in nearly 200 libraries, according to Worldcat, and has been translated into Spanish (I haven't looked for other languages). She has a chapter in a book called Core Curriculum for Lactation Consultant Practice, which is in over 225 libraries, and is a study guide for the international board certified lactation consultant exam. She's also been president of an international association. Those achievements seem to fall between WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR, and I think between them she meets notability guidelines. I have added some references (reviews) to the article, and will try to add more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if she were not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep is notable by virtue of her books--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep is notable due to her books and position as president of the International Lactation Consultant Association -- Circlecubed (talk) 19:49, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Good arguments on both sides but I see a slim consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Ammons, III Award for Animal Welfare

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

Local award, apparently being given to local people,and ,as one would expect, with only local sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not enough significant coverage. As nominator pointed out, all coverage has been in local news souces. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) WP:GEOSCOPE says an event MAY not be notable if only covered in local sources, so it is not sufficient just to point to local sources and say "not notable". 2) The "local" media we are talking about here includes essentially state-wide media (e.g., The Virginia Pilot, Virginia's largest daily). 3) Appears to be awarded every year, has a relatively high profile based on who it is named after. Meets WP:GNG on the basis of the sourcing already provided. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FOARP's arguments. I think it could be argued that the topic doesn't pass notability, but the opposite could also be argued per sources such as The Virginia Pilot. Being on the cusp like this, I don't think eliminating the topic (and easy opportunity for future improvement) would benefit Wikipedia at large. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had to debate this one with myself a bit, but in the end, DGG is right in that this award has no reach outside the local area, so it seems. Sounds like he is a great guy, good judge and all that, but that isn't the criteria. To be notable requires that the award has a demonstrated (by the sources) impact outside a local area, and it doesn't establish that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GEOSCOPE isn't applicable as this is an award, not an event. Purely local coverage of local awards in the local section of a regional paper is not enough to establish notability. The size of the paper does not matter, it is the audience that matters. Also, just on the gut test, this should be deleted: this is an award that is less than 2 years old. There simply isn't any way that it could achieve enough importance in less than 24 months to actually be notable. Our guidelines are best read with common sense which dictates the deletion of this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 27 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live in the 21st Century}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osadolor Nate Asemota}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer R. Niebyl}}