Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 February	21 February >

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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiboro

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia, and a Google search for "Tiboro" does not turn up any notable results. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T or List of Marvel Comics demons. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only linked in-line by three articles: Black Knight (Dane Whitman), Aragorn (comics), and Miss America (America Chavez). All of them are just name drops. Not significant enough to add to the demon list mentioned above. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge basic info into List of Marvel Comics demons. No other likely target, and valid search term. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:30, 26 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Carlyle

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: C or Spider-Man 3 (video game). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable within the comics, and the appearance in Spider-Man 3 (video game) seems extremely minor. If someone familiar with the game disagrees, please ping me and I'll update my opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Straightforward failure of WP:GNG. Google reveals no relaible secondary sources listed before real individuals, so a redirect would be folly. --Killer Moff (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 27 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Carik

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia, page is linked in the body of two articles, a Google search for "John Carik" doesn't turn up any notable results. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: C or Blade (comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet my criteria for a list entry. Not significant enough to warrant a description at Blade (comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argento. Fails WP:GNG. Too minor to merge or redirect. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatton Student Center

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

Apparently non-notable student centre, not one independent reliable source in our page. It gets some hits – but no significant coverage – on Gnews because various routine things happen there; no meaningful hits on Gbooks. According to our article, it has a "dining hall for students to purchase meals"; is this really of encyclopaedic interest or importance? (of course, if it had a dining-hall where students could purchase rolled steel products in bulk, that would be of some interest). This is the sort of mundane trivia that belongs on the school website. Redirect to University of Kentucky has been tried and reverted, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a $200 million dollar building is not a mundane school annexe and is of architectural interest and will most probably be the subject of preservation in the future Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i see at List of University of Kentucky buildings that there are quite a few buildings that dont have a wikiarticle although "of architectural interest and will most probably be the subject of preservation in the future" (note: i am not saying that these buildings arent wikinotable, just that the argument given above is not relevant:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least leaning that way. To "delete" outright would not be right. At worst the topic could be redirected to its row in the list of UK buildings. However, while the article could be edited down, there is still more valid material in the article than can easily be merged. --Doncram (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A USD 200 million dollar 330,000 square foot building is not insignificant. Britishfinance (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : We already have two suggestions to Keep the article that are based on the cost of the building. However, cost of constructing something is not a criterion for having an article on that something in Wikipedia! Suggestions based on policy would be far more productive. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the keep votes only have the building's price tag as a reason to keep it, which doesn't satisfy notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I !voted "keep" above. Again an outright "delete" would be inappropriate as a link to the this buildings entry in List of University of Kentucky buildings would be preferable, as a matter of wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added some material aobut the history of the building; they've preserved part of the 1938 interior.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Party In Backyard

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Declined PROD and previously speedied at PartyInBackground. wumbolo ^^^ 22:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources are in the article. Nixinova T C 23:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is an entirely non-notable person. Attempts to make it seem otherwise rely on youtube hits for Pewdiepie videos, rather than the subject of the article. Furthermore, whilst an attempt has been made to make it seem well referenced, no references support notability or indeed discuss the subject directly to support this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace for improvement and sourcing. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy WP:BLP1E. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. He is a ghost is material RS. When will the penny drop as to the disconnent with people with "millions" of youtube hits who don't even get a mention in the media-obsessed tier 2 papers? Is it because the hits are fake.? Britishfinance (talk) 20:41, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loss (comics)

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia, and is only linked by lists and disambiguation. Should be deleted, or possibly repurposed as a redirect to Loss (comic). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: L or List of X-Men enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet my criteria for inclusion on a list. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An extremely minor character, whose only source being used is two comic issues, which are invalid as reliable sources. I have found no other sources discussing this character except for fan wikis, which are also not valid sources. Merging is not recommended, as there is no sourced material here too merge. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability, and name is too generic to justify a redirect. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pure and unadulterated fancruft with no notabiity._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:44, 27 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 redirect to Portal axle. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Gear Lift

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

Unnecessary duplication of Portal axle. While at first glance I thought that this article had additional content worth merging into Portal axle, Andy Dingley pointed out that the article is extremely redundant and needlessly long-winded, hence the deletion nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Merge anything useful into portal axle, but I'm not seeing much. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little, if any, worthwhile content that isn't already in portal axle. The title violates the MOS so is not needed as a redirect either. --Sable232 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above - duplicate article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 25 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: L. MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living Diamond

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 15 times in Marvel Wikia. Page is linked in the body of two articles. Would appear to be too minor to add to a list, and there doesn't seem to be a suitable redirect target. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: L or List of X-Men enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet my criteria for inclusion on a list. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor character, with no reliable sources demonstrating any sort of notability. As there is no reliably sourced material present in the article, a merge is not needed.169.232.162.112 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Do not delete, Merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: L. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 25 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 redirect to Mystique (comics). MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence Leighton

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

Character appears three times according to Marvel Wikia, and the page is linked by four articles. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: L or Mystique (comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mystique (comics). A brief description of the character is available there and covers all of his appearances within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mystique (comics). It could be a viable search term, and as Argento Surfer says above, all of the relevant information is covered in the article already. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blameless (hip hop group)

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

Non-notable hip hop group that doesn't meet WP:BAND. No reliable sources found. Lapablo (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The existing source (the interview with Vertical Fix - archived) doesn't look reliable. Not able to find any more sources. Colin M (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 20:42, 27 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Barrera Jr.

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

County-level GOP chairman who had a failed run at Texas Attorney General. Fails WP:NPOL and nothing in my search turned up enough to establish WP:GNG. The only two sources for the article are the subject's mother's obituary and a link to the history of the Bexar County Republican Party. I was planning on PROD-ing this article but given that recently several other articles created by the since-banned Billy Hathorn were recently de-PRODed by random IPs I figured I might as well skip that step. GPL93 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Minor figure of no real significance. -R. fiend (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards for lawyers. He was a major trial court judge, candidate for major legal office, and a political insider. FWIW, I used to be a Democratic committee person. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian in Texas district courts are not particularly major courts, there are 27 judicial districts in Bexar County alone. Simply being a candidate in a statewide election and being active in local politics fails WP:NPOL. Furthermore, I could only find one actual independent news article covering him, from his run in 1986. While I understand that the benchmarks that you use can certainly aid in establishing whether or not one is notable, there still aren't any real sources to establish WP:GNG and he meets no inclusionary standard. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too many district courts to make a judge at this level notable, nothing else even comes close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A judge at this level might qualify for an article if he could be well-sourced as clearing GNG for it, but it's not a level that guarantees every judge an article regardless of sourceability just because they existed — and being a non-winning political candidate doesn't bolster his notability at all. If all we can show for referencing is primary sources and the routine obituary of his mother, that's not enough to make a judge or a non-winning political candidate notable. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State district court judges are not inherently notable. The subject fails WP:NPOL, and nothing else in his career has attracted enough attention to clear WP:BIO. Lagrange 613 05:39, 28 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lapablo (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Jak

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and no WP:RS Lapablo (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep I don't understand the nomination at all...the references are reliable sources (Allmusic, the LA Times; the Billboard links have rotted, but chart positions are also published in paper books by Joel Whitburn, so we can recover those), and the sources and chart positions together establish a claim to notability at WP:MUSIC. I'm also adding a new reference from The Fader, another substantial and high-quality source. Chubbles (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. The L.A. Times is reliable. The Fader seems reliable in this context. Reliability of Allmusic looks unclear, but 2 is enough. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that AMG is often brought to RSN (perhaps because it is so widely used as a source here), but other discussions of it have been less critical, and it has an editorial board and has published multiple paper books (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). Chubbles (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with All Music, Chubbles (talk), is not what it once was (as evidenced by the print collections that you linked) but, rather, what it has become under the ownership of the Rovi/TiVo database--a online hybrid of older content with editorial oversight along side the indiscriminate cataloging (per their mission statement) of any and all product for sale, often culled from user submitted promotional materials. Wise editors should use a critical eye in judging content added to that site post-2007; it's fast turning into a music industry equivalent of IMDB and probably half of the newer entries never would have passed muster under the scrutiny of editorial review on merit. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly passes WP:NMUSIC with coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Billboard, LaTimes and Allmusic which is certainly a reliable source as continually agreed by the WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Music as its bios and reviews are by a professional staff with music knowledge, the above commenter seems to want to disrepute every possible source in contradiction to accepted consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per quality of references. Atlantic306 (talk) regarding your characterization of my comments above, I suspect you may be confusing me with another editor? It is not at all my intent...and a favor: although I have been active on wikipedia AfD (primarily musicians) for about 5 years or so, I still do not know where these discussions that arrive at consensus take place. I see them referred to often, and have even asked within comments, like here, how to actively engage myself in the debates over sources, but I have never received an answer. I feel my professional background and current active participation in music press and promotion gives me legitimate insight into identifying truly reliable sources. I've noticed especially a misunderstanding of AllMusic based on, apparently, a long ago consensus among editors who may never actually have worked with or submitted content to AllMuisc. I really want to contribute to the assessments, and I'd appreciate some direction. Thanks. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions about AMG in particular have unfolded over many years and are scattered through the pages of the RSN discussion board. It comes up a lot because it is far and away the most comprehensive online music database with any sort of editorial control (the other contenders - Discogs and, well, us - being user-submitted), and so is used extensively on music pages. Editors tend to relate to it in one of two camps - "generally, good enough", and "suspect" - and I see miniature discussions pop up about its general reliability on the talk pages of articles fairly frequently, though they typically end with a judgment about some particular artist or piece of musical information rather than a blanket pronouncement about the site in toto. I don't think there's ever been, like, an RfC or something like that to make a definitive determination about when and how it is appropriate to use. Chubbles (talk) 18:26, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archivarix CMS

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

No evidence of notability of this CMS that was released two days ago. Possible COI issue. Fails WP:GNG for lack of independent sources. - Mr X 🖋 13:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This CMS was released in 2017 https://trends.google.comand it has a unique purpose - to manage websites restored from the Internet archive.DavidArchiv (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find no evidence of notability. Also, agree that there's an evident COI issue. Colin M (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Additionally, I encourage the article creator with "Archiv" in their name to disclose any connection to the company, following any appropriate instructions at WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Bakazaka (talk) 21:27, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sutherland

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject was awarded with an OAM, has released albums with Hunter Singers, has toured both in Australia and internationally. Passes WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaidar cuebiyar: would you mind clarifying which of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO you believe the subject satisfies? Colin M (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: specifically: #1 and #4. Others may be applicable, but only one is necessary for notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the OAM confers notability. According to the infobox at Order of Australia, around 25,000 have been awarded since 1975. The only independent coverage I can find is this brief local notice of a concert given by her choir group, thus I don't think WP:GNG is satisfied. As for criterion 4 of WP:MUSICBIO, "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.", while the article mentions her choir group touring Australia and Canada, the "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" portion is not satisfied. The only citation given is an event page for a local concert, with the event description mentioning the group "will be touring to the Kathaumixw Festival in Canada in July". I can find no other sources describing a tour. Colin M (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. The OAM by itself does not confer notability; the albums do not seem to have been released on a major or notable independent label; and I find very little coverage of the subject at all. I wondered if the Hunter Singers might be notable, but there did not seem to be much coverage of them, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 27 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. czar 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJ DeCeglie

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find one decent source from the Sydney Morning Herald. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR, et al. Gargleafg (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO created and maintained by a long series of SPA accounts (some with names, some IPs.) Sourced to author's website, blogs, deadlinks. Accomplishments include self-published novel, and micro-budged indie films .sNews Search on unique name brings up one good source Sydney Morning Herald, Philippa Hawker, 2013: Not your average home movie. It's not quite enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Culpepper

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Of the 5 cited sources, three are obituaries (only one is actually his, and another is his self-published book. An additional search turned up no sources that would establish notability. GPL93 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything to suggest notability either. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing anything here. A politician who never held office, it seems? -R. fiend (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of Billy Hathorn's unneeded articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is a strong WP:NPOL pass — it looks like he was only ever a local political organizer, and never an actual officeholder at any notability-conferring level of government — and the referencing is nowhere near strong enough to make him a special case over and above the thousands of other people who've done the same kind of stuff without getting Wikipedia articles for it. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henley & Partners Global Citizen Award

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

No coverage in reliable sources beyond mere mentions. Most sources cited to the article don't even mention the subject (and are instead used to support claims about individuals affiliated with or recipients of the award). The closest thing to significant reliable source coverage was [4], which mentions the award and the gala it is awarded at, but largely in the context of the controversial nature of the award's sponsor, Henley & Partners. Searching online, I was unable to find anything other than PR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into Henley & Partners. Frankly, I think most of the pages related to Henley have major issues with COI and UPE. This seems no different. I think some mention of this "award" could be mentioned in the main H&P article, but it does not seem to deserve its own. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Broccoli and Coffee:, could I ask for a clarification of your last sentence? It seems to be at odds with the rest of what you wrote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I suppose you're right that my other complaint is perhaps irrelevant to this discussion. I mean to say that I've long had issues with pages related to H&P for possible COI edits, and the fact that this Award page exists doesn't surprise me. All of that said, I think there is room for mention of the award on H&P's own page, but the award itself is not worthy or notable enough for its own page. Hope that helps clarify. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. This is a PROMO article for a non-notable award. Not fully comfortable merging this as it is non-notable PROMO content which is not obviously suitable for company article. Britishfinance (talk) 23:05, 27 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator in favor of a redirect. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshot (baseball)

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

Redundant, as this is also covered in Glossary of baseball#moonshot. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I'm going to WP:BOLDly redirect it there. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The originator of the phrase seems to be Jerry Doggett, not Vin Scully as claimed in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Gray

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

This person does not seem to be a notable musician--the sources are two online album reviews, plus a collection of trivial mentions in festival lineups. (I have removed two other references: one a google search of the artist's name, the other a 'buzzfeed community contributor' listicle.) Googling turned up three additional online album reviews by bloggers and freelance journalists, a press release for the album on pr.co, and a short interview; none of these seem sufficient to me to confer notability. gnu 57 01:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find a 2015 podcast interview of Gray and Cakes Da Killa: [5]—but I still think this isn't sufficient. Cheers, gnu 57 16:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with the choice of deletion.

This artist has been regarded within the LGBT community within music. As well as being featured and interviewed alongside other artist such as Cakes Da Killa back in 2015, she also was featured on an official music chart with ChartsInFrance. Chartsinfrance typically does not accept or post songs released by non notable artist. That page also has a Wikipedia and is considered notable.

Lastly, this page was and has been approved since it's inception last year and has went through minimal editing, mostly from other editors and contributors who haven't flagged it previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicLovingSoul (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Copied from talk page --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I don't find the blog reviews to be reliable sources (e.g. the musicexistence.com blog has a header link labelled "Get Your Content On Our Site" inviting artists who want coverage to contact them). It's worth noting that Spinnup, the music distributor the artist is signed with, seems to be a sort of self-serve music publishing service. I also don't find the inclusion on the chartsinfrance website to be evidence of notability (despite the site's name, the link doesn't seem to indicate that this artist had any albums or songs that charted anywhere). Colin M (talk) 20:11, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of hummingbird genera

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

Redundant to List of bird genera Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually this is doubly redundant: to the abovementioned List of bird genera (which however is rather bare-bones), but also to the genus lists in the subfamily articles (Trochilinae and Phaethornithinae). (Plus there is the List of hummingbirds, which does have stand-alone utility because it allows lookup by common name.) I think we are covered here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
Delete As User:Elmidae notes, the article is redundant. It's also out of date and unreferenced. And List of hummingbirds, which is up to date, when sorted by binomial becomes a list of genera. Craigthebirder (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:59, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fellows of the Computer History Museum

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

Redundant to Computer History Museum#Fellows. The list is not a separately notable topic. bd2412 T 17:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fellows of the Computer History Museum could developed as a category from Computer History Museum#Fellows.(Example. Paleorthid (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Colin M (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Computer History Museum#Fellows. postdlf (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant per nom. desmay (talk) 15:43, 25 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 Speedy Delete Author of page requested deletion via email (DB-G7) . OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Santoliquito

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

Autobiography with no evidence of depth-of-coverage in multiple reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO criteria. Notability claim appears to hinge on winning a boxing writing award, and award that doesn't appear to be notable in itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:05, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khizr-i-Rah

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

Source searches in English and Urdu turn up little in the way of significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Opting for AFD over PROD as the Urdu source searches are machine translated as I don't speak it myself. SITH (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a 12-page academic paper about this poem, this paper calls it "famous" and this one calls it "well-known". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources use the transcription "Khizr-e-Rah" and I'm sure there are other possibilities:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of sources for this. I haven't put any in yet because I seem to spend so much time these days working on AfDed articles, but I may get to it. Mccapra (talk) 19:16, 20 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 merge to Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2016 Istanbul explosions

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

WP:NOTNEWS; sadly, this isn't all that large of a deal in Turkey, and has received only the expected routine coverage. Madness ^Darkness 16:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey). FOARP (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the one who marked the article per my views on the talk page. The attacks on the HDP in that period are notable as a phenomenon but not these specific incidents. Should be merged to Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey) and that article could be separated if enough content accumulates. --GGT (talk) 01:27, 21 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 03:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help (band)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Band is only of local interest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC having two albums released on a major label, namely Decca. Also has coverage in national reliable sources such as Billboard and professional reviews such as All Music. This band is pre-internet so has book sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Missed that. Withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 20 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mono En Stereo

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

This article stretches the rules for promotion and inherited notability. While he has a lot of production credits, almost all of the sources in the article are about records that he produced, and he is generally listed briefly as the producer or not mentioned at all. The sources that are about him specifically are almost entirely routine listings at self-promotional and retail/streaming sites. The article has one supported statement on how he was mentioned briefly by NYT: [6], and he did get one moderately robust interview: [7]. (Those two sources are already in the article.) Otherwise, there is not enough reliable and significant coverage that is specifically about him and his work, which is evident after searches under all of his many professional names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Totally agree. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notoriety and seems promotional. Actaudio (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find were press releases or false positives of the Dutch "Mono en Stereo", nothing else. Without sources, I can't salvage this, and a passing mention in the NYT isn't enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 23 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe B. Finley

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

Fails WP:GNG and his position as school board member isn't enough to pass WP:NPOL. Like most articles by the now-banned Billy Hathorn none of the sources referenced establish notability. There are as follows: 1) his basic public records from Ancestry.com; 2) his obit in the local newspaper; 3) another obit in the same local newspaper; Sources 4 and 9 are simply a funeral home obit reprinted in the local newspaper; 5) his funeral announcement; 6) a brief passing mention that he was the manager of a since-liquidated ranch; 7) a paper submitted at an Agricultural Research Institute conference; and 8) a list of political contributions. GPL93 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Seems like a pretty much average guy who one editor has a particular interest in. -R. fiend (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. The UISD may have received coverage for the decision to do bilingual education, but no evidence is presented that this lead to coverage of Finley, especially no evidence of coverage outside of the local media market.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any claim of notability. School district officials are not notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on a county school board is not a notability freebie under WP:NPOL, but this is referenced exclusively to the local death coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any local political figure. This is not strong evidence that he's a special notability case over and above most other school board trustees. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Salticidae species

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

There are over 6000 species of salticids. Every time a species is transferred to a different genus, synonymized, or unsynonymized (which happens on a weekly basis) at least three (and often 4 or 5) articles have to be updated: the relevant Lists of Salticidae species (usually 1 to add to and another to remove from), the relevant genus article, and relevant species articles if they exist. Due to all the work involved, updates are rarely made and these lists are basically stuck in 2016 (when they were generate with a bot). These lists are completely redundant, as all the same information is covered by List of Salticidae genera and the relevant genus articles (only 1 of which is currently a red link). For comparison, the number of bird species is roughly the same order of magnitude, but no one has created List of bird species. Instead we have the manageable List of birds, which lists only the subgroups, while the actual species lists are one or two levels further down the article hierarchy. For salticids, we have twice the maintenance burden, and a fraction of the editors. I nominated these lists for deletion in 2014, but they were kept mainly because Sarefo regenerated the lists with a bot. Unless he is willing to keep doing that on an ongoing basis, these lists cannot be maintained by hand. Since this list was generated, over 200 species have had their names changed, but only a fraction have been fixed in these lists. Please let us restore some sanity and not have multiple copies of the same information which cannot be realistically kept updated and in sync! Kaldari (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've added the following subarticles to the deletion nomination:

Kaldari (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem odd to me, to lump all the genera and species of a family into a list, and then split it up by first initial. If the number of taxa in the family were small enough to fit on a single page, that would be OK. I don't see how this current setup is useful though. --Nessie (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless multiplication of required maintenance effort (which clearly isn't being expended). List of Salticidae genera does all the necessary work. "Do no try to keep massive redundant lists of invertebrate species" should be a policy item (joking...) - it's a thankless task, with minimum pay-off for the reader. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and all other "Lists of SPIDER-FAMILY species". My understanding is that when WP:WikiProject Spiders was started, there were few genus articles, and so it was thought that these lists of species by family would be useful. Now they are not. They are redundant to the usual system whereby:
- The family article has a list of genera
- The genus article has a list of species

Redundancy of this kind is always bad, and we should set about removing all of the lists of spider species by family. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, Outliving its usefulness is good, but is there likely to be anything useful that could be scraped into an article. cygnis insignis 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: there should be nothing in these lists that is not duplicated in List of Salticidae genera and then in the lists of species for each genus – lists that should either be in the genus articles, if the list is short, or in separate "List of SPIDER-GENUS species" articles if long. Clearly it would be good to check that this is the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had overlooked the list of genera, that is what I have used before. Again, your general guidance on where to list what is eminently sensible, now that building of content is more advanced. Family articles full of species are something I have felt needed rationalising, gutting rather than updating seems prudent as taxonomies continue to be resolved. cygnis insignis 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete, or userfy where that was offered: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_Salticidae_species, However, dated lists less bothersome than other forks, I just ignored these when I was dabbling with spider articles. cygnis insignis 20:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. Having List of Salticidae genera is sufficient and the proper way to have such pages. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 21 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.

More lists

@RoySmith: By the same logic as was used above, all of the following should be deleted. What's the best way of proceeding?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Another monster list of lists, it's the kind of thing a bot/script should take care of. I say this with particular fervor after the tedious, repetitive, and necessary cleanup following the previous lists deletions. – Athaenara ✉ 14:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Athaenara: indeed; the size of the cleanup is why although I've long thought these lists should go, I've never felt like proposing it! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's the rest of the spiders? I would certainly back the same treatment, following the above solid consensus. Options appear to be a) having an AfD for the entire lot, which seems reasonably efficient, or b) asking a taxonomically-minded admin to do it (not sure RoySmith considers himself such :). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD certainly worked well above, but spider experts may determine on their well-informed own that these lists are superfluous and burdensome and offload them via {{db-G6}} tagging or something similar. At least one (no, I'm not clicking down the whole list) was created by Peter coxhead, he's certainly free to {{db-g7}} any of those. – Athaenara ✉ 01:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

Yes, I created some – for consistency. I never agreed with them in principle (they were created before I joined WP:SPIDERS).
As editors found with the Salticidae lists, the real problem is that the tradition has been to put a link to the "list of spider family species" in |diversity= in the taxobox of every genus in that family. So there are many, many articles that need to be fixed if the species list article is deleted. This really needs a bot.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. As Lists of legal terms in the earlier version. Sandstein 15:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legal terms

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

This is not a list, as it contains only one defined term. Even if it was filled in, it would be unsourced. We have Category:Legal terms and don't need this stub. — JFG ^talk 12:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore soft redirect to Wiktionary:Appendix:Glossary of legal terms. Or alternatively, restore to ~~this version~~ as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative page from edit history suggested by postdlf is a better choice than my suggestion above. older ≠ wiser 19:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(after e/c) Redirect to wiktionary:Appendix:Glossary_of_legal_terms . Looking at the history, this was originally a redirect to a "transwiki" page which was moved to this wiktionary appendix, which looks likely to be helpful to the reader. (ie as per Bkonrad) PamD 13:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier version before an editor formatted as if it were a list in its own right... postdlf (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The state it's in this isn't an article. I do see potential to be a list of lists (given there is List of Latin legal terms and List of legal abbreviations). At this stage I don't have any preference. Ajf773 (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we should revert to the older version mentioned above and possibly rename to List of lists of legal terms. Multiple items in Category:Law-related lists could be added to such a meta-list. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to earlier version. The version linked by Postdlf looks reasonable. Our normal naming convention would have this at Lists of legal terms, so I suggest it be moved to that title, and keep the current title as a redirect, as it seems like a plausible thing somebody might type into a search box. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation Management

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

A relatively small organisation and the article does not satisfactorily demonstrate its notability. See also recent DRV discussion and DRV in 2007 (where I see DGG saying the equivalent of "keep". But this year, he applied the speedy tag!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been speedily deleted two times. Moderation Management does not meet the notability guidelines for an organization; it has always been a small organization (200 - 500 members at most), and more noted for its failures (attacking people who reported the murder of a five-year-old girl; having its founder kill two people in a drunk driving accident) than its successes (which, as per a 2001 paper, are dubious: About 80% of members drank 4+ times a week and over half of members had 5+ drinks per drinking day, which is not moderate drinking by any reasonable stretch of the imagination) Defendingaa (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is nothing to do with success. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sure passes WP:GNG. I reviewed WP:ORG to see if there's anything I was missing there, but passes there as well (passes WP:ORGIN, passes WP:ORGCRIT, etc). Readers may want to have a look at the exchange between User:Defendingaa and myself on the topic. I'll point out that I agree with Defendingaa to the extent that WP:IDONTLIKEIT (it being Moderation Management). That being said, Moderation Management is notable and deserves a fair encyclopedic article. - Scarpy (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re going to keep the article, we’re going to have to make sure to keep it pretty short and make it crystal clear that this small (and, IMHO, not notable) group never worked. The only survey I have seen about its members drinking habits shows that its members, by and large, were never moderately drinking, and its founder even, at one point, admitted that “moderation management is nothing but alcoholics covering up their problem”. I am worried that this is going to be a source of numerous edit wars, when some alcoholic in denial will try and say “but this WP:MEDPOP article says that there are many people moderately drinking in Moderation Management” and then the article will drift back in to being an article endorsing pseudo-medicine which, quite bluntly, does not work Defendingaa (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defendingaa, the decision about what the article should say should be based on the balance of what independent reliable sources say, rather than on what any Wikipedia editors might think. I suspect that such sources would tend to agree with your opinion, but I haven't looked widely enough to be certain, and it's the sources that we should go with. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s some WP:MEDPOP nonsense out there which claims that Moderation Management works (without citing any scientific evidence supporting this conclusion); there is very little actual science on MM’s efficacy, since MM is not a notable organization. What little science we have shows MM’s members, by and large, drinking quite heavily, but the science only shows this raw data without commentary or making the obvious conclusion. Defendingaa (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is about coverage in independent reliable sources, not our agreement or disagreement with or the number of members or the degree of success of an organisation, and the Google Books and Scholar searches linked above find plenty of such coverage. Everything else is a matter of editing to ensure that the article fairly reflects the coverage in reliable sources, which on an initial look, seem to be predominantly either sceptical about this organisation's claims or downright critical. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have more peer reviewed coverage critical about MM placed in the article if we keep it. Any pointers would be helpful. Defendingaa (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you one pointer: just click on the word "scholar" at the top of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft I initially listed this article, and RHaworth deleted it, as G11, for unimprovable promotionalism . Scarpy however convinced me that it was improvable, so I restored it, and moved it to draft to so it might be improved--and I began myself improving it. Bringing it back from draft to mainspace only for the purpose of deleting it is inappropriate.I think there's consensus that this is not an acceptable way to deal with an draft, because it defeats the purpose of draft space. (The DRV back in 2007 was an appeal of a A7 speedy for notability. I, along with almost everyone else , did not take promotionalism so seriously as now, & I don't think I considered then anything but notability. ), DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguously meets WP:GNG. The recent speedy deletion is frankly bizarre. I find it baffling that someone looking at the article as it existed when DGG requested speedy deletion would judge that the page was exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION (per WP:G11). Colin M (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I judged on the basis of the list of requirements for participation and the list of advantages, which together made up most of the article. Such a pattern is characteristic of promotional articles. I agree I should have looked more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 00

55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep per above keeps Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 21 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. Michig (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Barton

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

Fails WP:NPOL, non notable politician who didn't win the election. Not notable as a company owner either. Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL for not having any political position. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Failed candidate for state representative. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Lapablo (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for state legislature are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this offers nothing to suggest that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of being a candidate: it's referenced 75 per cent to raw tables of election results, and 25 per cent to a single newspaper endorsement, and literally cites zero sources suggesting that he ever got enough media coverage as "co-owner of Glass Doctor" to get over our notability standard for businesspeople in lieu of flunking the one for politicians. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George William Iuliano

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

Previously declined PROD. I don’t think notability is established. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 as no credible claim of significance has been established. SITH (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting any notability criteria and doesn't have the coverage to meet [{WP:GNG]]. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. How did this ever get on to WP, and how did it last so long. Britishfinance (talk) 18:25, 27 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afiq Azuan

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

Unreferenced BLP. Assuming the stats are correct, the subject never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this is this guy - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't presumed notable per NFOOTY, as he hadn't played in the super league. While the subject has received fairly wide international coverage following his serious injury in a lighting strike on the turf - [8][9][10][11] - per WP:BLP1E this doesn't make the bio notable. Furthermore, the event does not seem to pass WP:NEVENT (I don't see sustained coverage) and the article doesn't cover the event anyways - so there's little scope for renaming the article for the lightning strike event. The article (which is also titled wrong, I think) as presently construed could've been BLPPRODed. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 20 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 merge and redirect. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malev (military unit)

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. Although it might make sense to include this content in an article on the Estonian military, foreign words should not have articles in the English Wikipedia. Coastside (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salk. This should be a bulk nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale is nonsensical: what exactly is a "foreign word"? More importantly, per WP:MILUNIT, national "battalion-level or equivalent" units are notable, and an Estonian malev is larger than a battalion. Jpatokal (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm. I copied this thread there already. Coastside (talk) 15:26, 20 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 merge and redirect. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diviis

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. At best it should be a redirect (R from alternative language) to the English word "division". Coastside (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm Coastside (talk) 15:19, 20 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 merge and redirect (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brigaad

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. At best it should be a redirect (R from alternative language) to the English word "brigade". Coastside (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm Coastside (talk) 15:36, 20 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 merge and redirect (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kompanii

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. At best it should be a redirect (R from alternative language) to the English word "company". Coastside (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm Coastside (talk) 15:20, 20 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 merge and redirect (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lahingpaar

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. Although it might make sense to have this content in an article on the Estonian military, it is not appropriate to have foreign terms as articles in the English Wikipedia. Coastside (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm Coastside (talk) 15:21, 20 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 merge and redirect (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagu

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. At best it should be a redirect (R from alternative language) to the English word "squad". Coastside (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm Coastside (talk) 15:21, 20 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 merge and redirect (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rühm

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

This is a foreign word, not a loan word. At best it should be a redirect (R from alternative language) to the English word "platoon". Coastside (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion as they are all Estonian words for military terms and are not loan words in English.

Coastside (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete by redirecting to corresponding English terms (and/or Estonian Land Forces#Organization). No need for articles on 'division' etc. by language, differences between American division, German division, Estonian division etc. can be discussed in a single article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malev_(military_unit) (consolidating discussion): Coastside (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salk. This should be a bulk nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale is nonsensical: what exactly is a "foreign word"? More importantly, per WP:MILUNIT, national "battalion-level or equivalent" units are notable, and an Estonian malev is larger than a battalion. Jpatokal (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's individual, named units (e.g. 1st Infantry Battalion), not generic definitions of units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salk (consolidating discussion): Coastside (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are plenty of foreign loanwords in English, so the above rationale is confusing. That said, I am unsure if there is sufficient rationale for this and Lahingpaar, Brigaad, Diviis, Pataljon, Jagu, Rühm, Kompanii and such to exist separately on English Wikipedia. We don't need entries for 'Division in Estionian' - it probably should be merged to division. But this should be a bulk nom with all of those Estonian terms analyzed side by side (nominating just one or two - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malev (military unit) - terms - will be confusing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into single article. The information in these articles is useful and well-sourced, but probably better off in a single article about Estonian military divisions. Jpatokal (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Estonian Land Forces and/or to appropriate English-language equivalent (e.g. Battalion, Platoon). Keep Malev (military unit), which does seem peculiar to Estonia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single article; Salk should redirect to Jonas Salk, whose fame is worldwide. bd2412 T 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Estonian Land Forces#Organization, with the definite exception of Salk, which should redirect to Jonas Salk, and the possible exception of Malev (military unit). I'm undecided as to whether the latter merits a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To answer the question "what exactly is a foreign word" (as asked by @Jpatokal:), in the context of the English Wikipedia it is a non-Enlgish word. A foreign word is discussed in the manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_words. In this context, I mean a foreign term as described at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Foreign_terms. Guidance about using foreign words sparingly can be found at Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Use_other_languages_sparingly. The specific guidance on using foreign words for article titles (which is what this AFD is about) can be found at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_English. More detailed information can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Regarding the fact that there are loan words with articles in English, I do understand that, but I am specifically arguing that these are not loan words as they are not commonly used in English. On the contrary they are foreign words and as such should not have articles with those titles in the English Wikipedia.Coastside (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus, I recognize the argument that this content is worth keeping in an article on the Estonian military, and I would support that. If that is how this gets resolved, these article titles should redirect to that article with {{R from alternative language}}. In my opinion that includes Malev (military unit), which is still a foreign term vs. a loan word. As additional guidance, entries in such an article should use English with foreign words secondarily. For example: instead of Kompanii (English: company) such an article should use something like: Estonian military company (Estonian: Kompanii). Coastside (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-English words", whatever that means, are not a valid reason for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON for the canonical list. You will need to base your argument on lack of Wikipedia:Notability or perhaps Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Jpatokal (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what I mean by "non-English words", I provided all the relevant policy links above and no one else seems confused. I can't clarify for you any better than that. Regarding the "canonical" list of "valid" reasons for deletion I would point out that the policy says "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...", so be careful about wikilawyering. Regardless, I understand your position to be that you don't think these articles should be deleted and that you think it was inappropriate that I proposed they be deleted. Coastside (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Based on the constructive suggestions above (thank you), I think the right approach is to merge these articles into Estonian Land Forces#Organization with redirects (from alternative language) to the merged article, and change of primary topic for Salk to Jonas Salk. I'll leave this discussion open a bit longer for additional comments, and then barring objection I'll close the AFD and add {{merge to}} for those articles with reference to this discussion. Coastside (talk) 02:35, 21 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 merge and redirect (non-admin closure) Coastside (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salk

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

This is a foreign word. It's not a loan word but rather an Estonian word. The primary topic for "Salk" should be the virologist (Jonas Salk) or else the disambiguation page "Salk (disambiguation)". It's certainly wrong for the primary topic to be a foreign term. Coastside (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are plenty of foreign loanwords in English, so the above rationale is confusing. That said, I am unsure if there is sufficient rationale for this and Lahingpaar, Brigaad, Diviis, Pataljon, Jagu, Rühm, Kompanii and such to exist separately on English Wikipedia. We don't need entries for 'Division in Estionian' - it probably should be merged to division. But this should be a bulk nom with all of those Estonian terms analyzed side by side (nominating just one or two - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malev (military unit) - terms - will be confusing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into single article. The information in these articles is useful and well-sourced, but probably better off in a single article about Estonian military divisions. Jpatokal (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please continue consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rühm. I copied this thread there already.Coastside (talk) 15:34, 20 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springer Series in Surface Sciences

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS. No references and no results in a Google search other than database listings. –eggofreason^talk 19:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it possible for book series like this to notable, e.g., the Lecture Notes book series is likely notable. But for this smaller, more specialized series, I was unable to find any secondary sources reviewing the series, or discussing its impact, etc. Springer has many specialized book series and merging this one into the main Springer article would lend undue weight to the series. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every book series is notable and this one diesn't appear to have the necessary coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --MaoGo (talk) 11:47, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Bracey

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

Not all journalists are notable. I don't see what makes this person pass WP:BIO/WP:NCREATIVE. A single very niche award (Swimming Australia's 2008 Media Award), no in-depth independent coverage of his life or activities, this is effectively a wiki-CV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a reasonable amount of "media personality" reporting but it is all routine as far as I can see. Subject does not seem to have done anything notable / creative yet. The one, minor, niche award is not enough to get over the GNG line. Looks like someone career driven, so probably TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced and detailed. Bracey has hosted his own self-titled national television program for 4 years and has hosted national sports program Sports Sunday, as well as the front man of the Nine Network's NRL and Australian Open coverage. Easily meets BIO and as explained in the previous sentence and the article meets criteria 1 of WP:ENT "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows... -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You always vote keep in articles on journalists you have created, and they have always gotten deleted. It is, perhaps, a time to get a hint, that your interpretation of what is notable is not the same a community, and adjust your understanding? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sports journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flirt4free

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

Not enough coverage for a website, not encyclopedic. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 20:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - It seems notorious at first sight, but not have enough coverage.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NWEB. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a WP:GNG failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:23, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter traditions

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

List that is not notable as a set. Appears to be a random collection of hashtags put together by the page creator. Fails WP:LISTN. Citrivescence (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK. Seems to be a random collection of hashtags that have had a news story about them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is indeed a "collection of hashtags put together by the page creator" (me) I'd disagree that it's entirely random, as every instance mentioned on the page is genuinely an annual event in which people revitalise the hashtag or topic (not all have a tag). The examples have 'escaped' from Twitter's confines and have been written about in fairly sensible, citable articles and some have taken on other effects in the "real world", eg raising money. Granted it's not the most important reflection of sociological phenomena but I do think it's more than just internet whimsy (I didn't include "Balustrade Lanyard" among them https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/going-viral-brl33whb6dt and https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/he-was-the-peoples-balustrade-lanyard) and reflects one way in which a popular social media tool is used to share thoughts and information among people who may not otherwise know each other. JoBrodie (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoBrodie: Notability for lists requires notability as a set. That is, your references must also name and discuss these hashtags together, which is not the case. Citrivescence (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence: If that's the case there's no need for further discussion, the page should be deleted immediately JoBrodie (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoBrodie: Since it is the case, can you please change your !vote to delete? Citrivescence (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence: Well, no, because obviously I don't want it to be deleted. It just seems that if this was a requirement of the list, and the list already couldn't satisfy it, then I'm not sure why it was opened for discussion in the first place. JoBrodie (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Extremely arbitrary, and sourcing overall is very weak - several only have primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could be convinced to !vote in favor of keeping this page if anyone found more secondary sources about "annual Twitter traditions" as a distinct category of thing. I suspect that someone has written about this, but it's the sort of writing that is easily lost amid the noise. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm not sure if anyone has written an off-Wikipedia article about the various Twitter traditions (alas), all the articles and references I found pretty much focus on one theme / tradition. I'm fairly sure there have been news articles and blog posts about Twitter's use as a 'second screen', where people watch TV and share comments about it live via hashtag - a different sort of Twitter tradition perhaps. Anyway, I have found the following references...
  JoinIn has featured in Twitter's blog: https://blog.twitter.com/en_gb/topics/events/2017/Sarah-Millican-JoinIn.html, Metro: https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/25/feeling-lonely-low-christmas-not-joinin-twitter-8283322/, Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/twitter-connects-those-lonely-at-christmas-with-heartwarming-hashtag-joinin_uk_5c223f62e4b05c88b6fbe8da, BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42477266
  John Lewis's story (confusion between American man of that name and British store) has been in Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/19/john-lewis-twitter-uk-christmas-ad, featured on ITV: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-19/american-caught-up-in-john-lewis-retailer-mix-up-gets-his-own-christmas-ad/, BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46266698, Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/christmas/john-lewis-christmas-advert-2018-twitter-uk-man-watch-video-a8641146.html
  Richard Herring's amiable trolling of people asking, on International Women's Day, when International Men's Day might be has been written up in the Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/nternational-womens-day-richard-herring-comedian-raises-money-men-international-mens-day-a8246616.html, E'enin' Stan'ad: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/comedian-replies-to-every-person-asking-when-is-international-mens-day-on-twitter-a3785081.html, Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/19/international-mens-day-women-sexist, Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/international-mens-day/
  Ed Ball's Day text comes from Ed Ball's Wikipedia page.
  Happy to find more examples but I don't want to bury the discussion in URLs :-) JoBrodie (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, without sources discussing the concept of an annual Twitter event, I'm not sure a list of them would obey the letter of WP:LISTN (although I personally wouldn't find it all that objectionable). Honestly, this material could go in the hashtag article without significant trouble. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 27 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Mubenga

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

Non-notable subject, unsourced BLP, and reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has a source in the External links section, from which the creator copy-pasted the vast majority of the text, which is something worth checking before nominating to AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nn --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being superintendent of a single city's local school board is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — it might get a person into Wikipedia on the vanishingly rare occasion that they could be referenced well enough (i.e. nationalizing coverage) to make them a special case over and above most other school superintendents, but nothing remotely like that is being demonstrated here. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 25 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 speedy deleted by @Berean Hunter per G11. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EW1987. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hottinger Group

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

Does not meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Virtually all of the article's substance is cited to the subject's website, press releases, or to articles interviewing employees of the group. The sole independent coverage is routine coverage of the subject's bankruptcy filing in 2015. I wasn't able to find anything better searching online in English and French. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article requires enhancement and additional sources, which is work in progress. The business in its current form has not received significant coverage, but this is not uncommon in the family office and wealth management industries, where privacy and confidentiality of the founding family and family clients is paramount^[1] ^[2] . However, there is information and coverage relating to family members who have been instrumental in its development, component businesses and predecessors to the current Group.

The rationale for producing the article was that a number of disparate articles exist on Hottinger family members and component businesses, including and besides those which make up the current group. The Hottinger Group article seeks to unify and add to available content by describing the continuing legacy of the Hottinger family within financial services. A number of directly comparable firms in the industry (in terms of history, family origins, services offered, category of business) most notably Stonehage Fleming, feature as standalone Wikipedia articles. Further, there is an incomplete picture at present with articles on the Swiss bank Hottinger & Cie and the Hottinguer family (as well as individual articles on various members, but nothing in relation to surviving businesses bearing the family name). This appeared to me to be a gap.

The business was publicly recognised in the 2017 City of London Wealth Management Awards as Family Office of the Year, and the following year (2018) as Portfolio Manager of the Year. The business is nominated again in three categories for 2019 (results pending). This demonstrates notability and meaningful activity within the industry.

signed, EW1987 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notability on Wikipedia is determined primarily by the availability of coverage in independent reliable sources–while I can certainly understand that a family banking group would value privacy, when assessing whether or not the subject merits a Wikipedia article, we need to judge based on the availability of information, and the fact that the subject has a good reason for keeping such information to a minimum does not absolve us of the requirement. Furthermore, notability is not WP:INHERITED–just because some Hottinger individuals and companies are notable does not necessarily mean that the "Hottinger Group" is notable. Regarding the awards won, business awards are rarely indicators of notability, and the rewards in question appear to have virtually no coverage outside of PR publications, indicating to me that they are not exceptions. Businesses in general are held to very high notability standards on Wikipedia, (see WP:ORGCRITE for specifics). As for the article on Stonehage Fleming, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Finally, I noticed that on your talk page, there's discussion of a previous username that you used, "HG 1786", which would indicate that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject. Please declare any such conflict of interest or lack thereof. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a Family Office the principals and the business are often intertwined (as in this case) so arguably there is a case for inherited notability. With respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, arguments on this basis can be valid and helpful in assessing notability and making decisions about the future of the article, which is the reason for raising the comparison.

Given that the family history is several hundred years old, not all sources are easily searchable online. I appreciate that you have conducted online searches in reaching your decision to flag the article for possible deletion, but there is additional relevant information in relation to the Hottinger family and their historical business interests located in older French language books, which almost certainly would not have appeared in an online search. With the help of a native French speaker (which I am not!), I am compiling additional references and material on the subject at present.

Whilst I understand that certain standards have to be upheld, there is no requirement for an article to be perfect upon first publication. I considered that this article was missing from the suite of information currently available about the Hottinger family and their business activities. By its existence as an article, it's possible to improve the quality of collective knowledge on the subject and also makes things easier for those without prior knowledge to understand how the somewhat confusing collection of individuals and businesses fit in with each other.

To my knowledge I have complied with the conflict of interest guidelines by disclosing at the outset that I have a connection with one of the entities mentioned within the subject of the article. I derive no benefit from the subject having an article, I simply felt it was a gap not to have information available on the current operating business interests of the family. I am now contributing to the discussion in the interests of ensuring that deletion policies are applied consistently and fairly. You are correct in pointing out that I misunderstood the username policy upon joining and as you saw, this was immediately addressed when someone flagged it to me. If there is something more I should be doing that I have missed, I would be happy to rectify this. Signed,EW1987 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs enhancing rather than deleting.
Hottinger (Hottinguer) family are of historical importance.
Hottinger Group page should contain the narrative of their current and historical business activities.
There are many integration facts between Hottinger family and the world of finance that are missing from this page. They had business dealings and close associations with the Delessert, Rothschild, Cazenove, Baring and Stern families, none of which has been captured in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeop9021 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 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 speedy keep. See Speedy keep criteria #1 - The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. (bolding added to relevant parts). Please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for proposing a merger. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Professor Watchlist

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

Poorly cited stub article for a spin-off website with possibly falsified references. Might fail WP:SUSTAINED coverage as all cited articles point back to 2016. Although there are definitely post-2016 sources that briefly mention individual professors being targeted by the subject, it might be more appropriate to merge those and the rest of this article of its parent organization Turning Point USA. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is essentially a petition to merge. Although on second thought, posting here would probably gain more discussion. Oh well. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:21, 20 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 merge to Sedalia, Missouri#Culture. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Sedalia Christmas

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

Non-notable show of limited local interest, only performed twice by local (amateur?) cast. No supporting sources (all those given either pre-dated the play by a century or were not relevant to it. Emeraude (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to a new section on theater under the Sedalia, Missouri cultural heading. The topic fails to have attracted any state-wide or national press, but the locals seem to have made a fuss. That local press accordingly would seem appropriate for the Sedalia page, with succinct coverage of the play and ideally others (or the theater house). 24.84.14.158 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Redirect per above. Does not meet notability for a standalone article. Britishfinance (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Missouri Life Magazine is not a local source. It also has two local news sources which cover it in depth, used as references on the page. (I just added them myself).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge to Sedalia,_Missouri#Culture. Lack of direct coverage means it doesn't meet the WP:GNG. I can't find what Epiphyllumlover is talking about. I find nothing in https://issuu.com/missourilifemagazine/docs/ml_1208_lr If there is something, please quote the direct coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Click on the magnifying glass, search "Sedalia" and look at entry 2 out of 8.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Ebook [Kindle] Sedalia (Download Ebook) by mikiopo Published 9 days ago 1 page”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8 Maybe I am stupid. How about you make it easier for me an quote from the direct coverage? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to miss it. It says, in full

A Sedalia Christmas
Dec. 5-7. Traditional holiday music and local
author, Becky Imhauser, brings Christmas to life with
stories and images of past celebrations. Liberty Center
Association for the Arts. 7 PM Fri.-Sat.; 2 PM Sun. $5.
660-827-3228".

I don't see how an event listing counts as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Emeraude (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see it. It is definitely not a source that demonstrates notability. Not independent. Doesn't discuss the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 23 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 no consensus. I might have closed this as delete, but giving credence to Nosebagbear's change of !vote, am closing as no consensus. Nosebagbear may move this to draft per their suggestion. Lourdes 03:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOPAK

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

Not notable. Ruyaba (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify - inability to find suitable sources, let alone to pass WP:NCORP. Notwithstanding someone who might manage a better job than I at searching the turkish sources. As a side note, I suspect the article could probably be considered to fail G11 (advertising). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to draftify per WP:ATD Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. No attempt has been made to provide at least one third-party source. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly written under-referenced article (candidate for "draftification"), but the business is notable. 200,000 tonnes per year of pulp and "the biggest pulp paper and cardboard manufacturing company in Turkey as well as in the Balkans and Middle East" is a material business. Here is a write up in Turkish Fortune Mopak Britishfinance (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added two more refs. Their MOPAK SEKA deal does turn up a few turkish articles so I translated one of them. I think this will pass WP:GNG but all references are in Turkish. Britishfinance (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I very rarely do a third relist, but I think this needs a closer look in light of BF's added refs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Britishfinance: - the Turkish fortune article is good, however the Hürriyet article appears to be an interview, without independent commentary - thus it doesn't help give any notability. Given the strictness, of WP:NCORP, it still doesn't meet notability. I'd be happy enough to !vote draftification (or even userfy) if you'd prefer me to do that? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Nosebagbear: I have struggling with this to find more good RS on notability. Not sure if the issue is that they just don't exist (I would still be surprised given the scale of their plants), or whether I just can't see them via Turkish-translated websites (i.e. I am trying to screen them using English terms). Not sure I can get anything more. Would love if anybody with skills in this area could definitively say whether all I have is all there is; perhaps draftify is an option. Am open-minded eitherway. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've changed to draftify for the moment. Another look would be great - I think there is a list of admins who speak certain languages, but I can't remember where it is. Perhaps a message at the turkish project? We really just need a few key words translated to help the hunt - a machine translate is sufficient for checking the actual sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the gesture for my efforts!. Britishfinance (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Three sources, all are non-independent. The company is very actively promoting itself. I think there is no chance of it meeting WP:CORP. Do not draftify, but delete with prejudice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 22 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. Lourdes 03:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic properties in Williams, Arizona

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

This page should be deleted because it contains nothing of value in addition to what is/can/should be included in NRHP-listed Williams Historic Business District, NRHP-listed Williams Residential Historic District and Williams, Arizona. This is duplicative, and as far as I can tell only has been created to allow for original research to be added, potentially, about properties that the article creator might want to make publicity about. In no other state besides Arizona are there any articles like this one. I don't know why, but the article creator seems to want to work outside the framework which works well for covering notable historic properties everywhere else in the U.S. Doncram (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the creator wishes to cover buildings that they personally deem to be historical. They are willing to note "However, not all of the individual structures qualify as historical within the district. This is due to the fact that most are owned by private owners who have the undeniable right to demolish or change the façade of the structure for commercial reasons if he or she so desires." Which is basically correct, that owners can opt out of NRHP listing. However, if the property is not NRHP-listed, and not deemed historical by any other body, then IMHO it is not Wikipedia-notable. We are not well served by lists of properties deemed notable solely by one Wikipedia editor. --Doncram (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'm surprised how fast you were in nominating this well written article for deletion. It is not the first time that you have attempted to have an article which I have written deleted, why is that?. As a matter of fact by the tone of the nomination it seems as if you have something personal against my contributions. I go through a lot of trouble visiting the towns in Arizona to take pictures and document historical structures.

1. This article is not about the Williams Historic Business District per se. The particular structures pictured in the Historic Business District section were not deemed historical by me. They have been recognized as historical by the Camp Verde Historical Society and have plaques provided identifying them as such. Some are also individually listed in the National Register of Historic Place,

2. I do not work outside of the framework nor have provided original research as claimed. The sources in regard to the properties are included, among them the National Register of Historic Places forms. Of course I have dedicated the series to towns and cities in Arizona, because that is where I live.

3. As stated above I am not the person who deems the mentioned properties as historical. Even though the properties are within the NRHP historic district not all with the exception of those listed are historical. These building are mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places form.

4. The houses in the article are also considered as such in Williams Residential Historic District National Register of Historic Places form. Wikipedia does not have an article about the Williams Residential Historic District.

5, Included in the article are the places listed in the National Register of Historic Places within the Williams Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest, because that section of the forest is in Williams and the Williams Ranger District Office also.

6. Nominator, please do not add your personal POV comments to the article.

Nominator, please do not make this nomination a personal issue and stop following and harassing me about my work. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (ec to edits revising their reply) About me nominating this promptly after your creation, that is nonsense. You linked to one or more articles that I created, so it showed up on my watchlist, and based on previous stuff I knew this was likely dreck (IMO) that should be deleted. The prompter the better.

We (Wikipedia editors) have a framework, in which we cover notable historic properties in the U.S.: we list them within articles about NRHP-listed historic districts. And we make links to those articles from articles about towns/cities/counties, from sections about their history. We don't go on about places that we personally think are old and interesting, without sourcing. There is no reason to have a new, separate series of list-articles going outside of the existing system. Wherever you mention houses/buildings that are listed in a NRHP historic district, well they should be covered in that list-article instead. Wherever you mention something else, as you have in others in your personal series of Arizona list-articles, it basically should not be covered. In your reply you mention places covered by a Camp Verde Historical Society, I am not sure about those. Are those covered in a NRHP historic district? Is it an independent, valid source? If there are notable such places, not NRHP-listed, why not just mention them in the Williams, Arizona town article's history section? I seriously, deeply, do not understand your quest to create a different structure in Arizona. It seems egotistical and inappropriate to me, duplicative where you agree with NRHP or other historic district listing, and inappropriate/non-encyclopedic wherever it is based on your personal judgments. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your statement "It seems egotistical and inappropriate to me, duplicative where you agree with NRHP or other historic district listing, and inappropriate/non-encyclopedic wherever it is based on your personal judgments.", seems as if you are getting a little personal. You state here "The prompter the better", that seems to me as pushing your POV on this nom. As I have stated my article is about strctures per se which have been sourced. You state "We (Wikipedia editors)", I don't know, but I have been here and editing for, let me see. 15 years with over 700 articles under my belt. Anyway my friend, let's discontinue and put an end to this discussion and let the community decide the fate of the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not Fair - To all the editors who read this, the nominator has taken it upon himself to use my work (Intellectual work) and images, which he is criticizing here, and in a state of "plagiarism" has posted and copied them exactly word for word on the Williams Historic Business District article. see: [12]. Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. Use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. He did this before a decision on this article's fate could be reached. This inappropriate act in turn could have affected the decision of the voters and the outcome of this nomination. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no reason this article should be nominated for deletion. The subjects fully pass WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect, subject of this stand-alone list article falls within the scope of the article Williams, Arizona. That article does not yet meet WP:TOOBIG, as such I am of the opinion that a sub-article or stand-alone list article, would be at this time best as an embedded-list within the Williams, Arizona article. When the parent article becomes too large, this article can be re-created as a stand-alone list as a sub article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of annoyingly complicated merge/split up - Here's the thing. Doncram has taken a strangely hostile approach to this AfD for some reason, and copy/pasting the material this article contains without attribution (while arguing to delete the original content he copied [!?]) is a bad enough copyvio that it could probably go to ANI (lest he take care to promptly remedy the situation). Ultimately, however, the underlying point is more or less sound. That is, what is a "historic property" and why do we need a stand-alone list of such properties apart from the NRHP pages, the pages about the properties within those NRHP-listed districts, and the page about the town? There's no need to delete here, as there's more than a little bit of usable content. The problem is that it was compiled in this page, rather than in the pages that already exist... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is an excellent one and should be a stand alone informative article as it is. I suggest that instead of merging this article, that the following Williams Historic Business District be merged into Williams, Arizona. Antonio Martin (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doncram, I respect the quality of the work you have faithfully produced here year after year about historic sites and, being a history fanatic, also admire the thoroughness of the contributions you have made, but I respectfully disagree with your position in this case. Let me explain why.

In analyzing, I see there are 2 arguments against the List article: (1) Duplication of contents/internal WP copyvio, and (2) Non-notability/OR. So it's really 1 argument: Duplication of contents (if the property in Tony's list is already in the NRHP) and Non-notability (if the property isn't in the NRHP). -- sort of a catch 22.

If we have articles about roads in AZ and then we make Lists of roads in AZ. We have articles about rivers in AZ and then we make a List of rivers in AZ. We have articles about museums in AZ and then we make a List of museums in AZ. So, clearly, if we have articles about historic places in AZ, then why not make a list of historic places in AZ (or particular cities for that matter, like this one)? So the argument goes "because the Williams, AZ, list contains places that aren't listed in the NRHP". But, to me, that's a non-argument because not all roads in the List of Roads, rivers in the List of Rivers, nor museums in the List of Museums need to have an article written to be listed in those 3 respective lists. In fact, the opposite is generally true, that someone will write a List article about, say, Mountains in Alaska, before other editors will write the article about each mountain. Morale: Not having and article written yet, isn't a requirement for road/river/museum to be listed in their respective list article. In fact, notability, which is a requirement for an article subject, isn't a requirement for the individual members listed in a list article.

There's nothing sacred about the NRHP; they are only a guide, they are not the law of the land. It doesn't matter that the NRHP selects and lists places, because, for example, the Sierra Club has their own listing of great hiking trails, but we don't limit ourselves to writing articles about trails listed in Sierra Club's lists. It's a free country; we don't need to limit ourselves to go only by what the US Govt (via its NRHP list) says are historic places. We can do our own (they don't need to be backed up by the Gov't; they only need to be backed up by RS). And, no, that's not OR if there are entities, other than the NRHP, that consider the site historic. And we certainly don't need to limit ourselves to go only the NRHP list if there are others places that are equally historic but that NRHP doesn't list for reasons that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with history.

If, however, Tony's list contains any copy violations, then certainly those needs to be deleted or paraphrased ASAP. Or if his List article contains any places listed without any cites to back it up (say, Tony's grandmother's house or what have you), then that needs to be corrected. But copyvios, if any, or the lack of cites, in and of themselves, aren't reason enough to DELETE the entire List article.

If there is something in Tony's List that isn't in the NRHP list and isn't historic and you can point it out by name(s), then we can look at specifics, but for now, since we are dealing in generalities only so far, this is how I vote. Mercy11 (talk) 05:18, 27 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miggy Tolentino

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

Reason Intergalactic Tomato (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Not one reference. Does not meet criteria for WP:BIO.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has sources now. Very weak nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is referenced. It only needs content in two sections which can be done through some research. --Hiwilms (talk) 14:36, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAILS Library Network

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

Fails WP:ORG. Prod was removed by the article creator with the explanation that "library systems are generally considered notable", which is absolutely false. Come up with a reliable non-local source that discusses this quasi-governmental agency in detail and I'll happily withdraw this. Stating there is something inherently notable about a library system is both false and lazy. I see nothing either here or WP:BEFORE that shows notability and WP:OTHERCRAP is just that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous examples of library systems being kept as inherently notable (I gave Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsden County Public Library System as examples in my edit summary). The most prudent example might actually be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North of Boston Library Exchange, which is a much more poorly sourced article on an almost identical library network that was kept at AfD. @John from Idegon, if you feel these sorts of articles should not be kept, please also add the following to your nomination so that we don't have to litigate them one at a time:

(I'm not trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing these, just trying to save time by consolidating). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a referendum on the notability of libraries in general, but rather on whether this library is notable. They are not and this not the place to discuss that. I'd say if you want to establish some sort of consensus on the general notability of libraries, WP:VPP would be the place. So no, I won't be doing that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is an article in Computers in Libraries, listed here, more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not like how this page is listed for AfD less than 3 hours after it's creation, that's not assuming good faith, and gets a little close to WP:BITING (in fact, this exact scenario is nicely outlined there). I would like to try and help this article before I make my final decision, for now though this page is strikingly similar to dozens of other library consortium pages, most of which can be found at the Category:Library consortia page. I would like to note that despite what the nominator claims, library systems are historically voted as "keep" at AfD a large amount of the time. This is not a referendum on this page as it currently stands, but is it say there are countless examples in the talk page of WP:Libraries and in other places to show that library systems are generally notable. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, all Pokemon were considered notable too. If you want an WP:SNG, propose one. We have draft space to develop articles. No article should ever come to mainspace that does not meet WP:GNG. If I had found sufficient sourcing, I would have draftifyed it. I didn't. Take your aspersions and shove them up your ass. John from Idegon (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely appalled at that last statement. Nothing I wrote could have possibly prompted such a horrifying response. See WP:CIVIL SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Typical! Its all about bottoms with you wikieditors." (with apologies to Fawlty Towers) Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime Coolabahapple}. The most graphic interaction that has been stimulated by a WP library article? Lower tone guys. There is a serious point at the core of this, hence why there are no votes yet (and this will need re-listing), about WP policy re these networks that may be needed. The actions of liabaries don't make front page news (per normal GNG), but doesn't mean that the significance of the networks should not be recorded. The amount of existing articles on equivalent networks might imply that the WP community does have a leaning in this direction (same example as per WP:PORNBIO, which makes up for lack of GNG). Pinging DGG and PamD for expertise. Britishfinance (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have always counted county (and similar) library systems as notable-- I cannot immediately think of any exception; we have however usually not counted those of individual towns, though there has sometimes been disagreement. The question, as usual here, depends on what we consider a substantial reference and what a mere notice. We are usually quite tolerant of that for important community institutions. The terms in the GNG are general, and need to be interpeted in individual cases, and how they interpret them is up to the community. And even more fundamentally, the GNG, of course, is a guideline, and not only do all guidelines intrinsically permit exceptions, but this particular one makes a point of saying so at the top. The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and by includingthe systems but not the individual libraries we are meeting that policy. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re-visiting this after a while away. I think we really need to get around to making a WP:NLIBRARY once and for all, because this is one of dozens of examples of library systems getting called to AfD, and so far I can't think of any that have failed. I agree with with DGG wrote on the matter and list it as the reason for my vote. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:39, 26 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don L. Crawford

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

Biography of a person notable only as a city councillor, not adequately referenced for the purposes of getting him over WP:NPOL #2. Dayton OH is not a global city for the purposes of getting the "city councillors are inherently notable" pass, so the inclusion test he would have to pass is that he could be referenced and substanced well enough to mark him out as special -- but the article literally just states that he existed as a city councillor, the end, and the four footnotes aren't doing a strong job of actually getting him over WP:GNG.
The New York Times source is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that's primarily about somebody else; the Jet source is a 54-word blurb that isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself; and the Dayton Daily News is the local newspaper where some coverage of Dayton's city councillors would simply be expected to exist. Feature Writing for Newspapers, meanwhile, links to a generic directory profile for the book rather than a readable PDF copy of the book, so I'm unable to verify whether there's any genuinely substantive content about him in it or not — but it appears to be a journalism textbook, so if there is content about him in it then it's likely to be an existing news article from another source being annotated as an example of journalistic structure, rather than core content actually written by the book's author that would have any direct bearing on Crawford's notability in its own right.
All of which means that this isn't enough sourcing to get him over the bar -- GNG does not just count up the number of sources that mention a person's name and keep everything that meets or exceeds two, but also applies depth and range and context tests that these sources aren't passing. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm, this one's a little less cut-and-dried. He was the first black city commissioner. He's got a park named after him. This one might be borderline notable. valereee (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, and he's also in the "Notable Kentucky African Americans" database at UK. Groan. Dayton City Commissioners are not really one of my research or writing interests lol. Why don't we have a persons-of-color deletion sorting list? valereee (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly may help if he can be shown to have received a lot more media coverage for it than just the weaksauce stuff present here, but being the first member of an underrepresented group to hold a city council seat in his own city (but not simultaneously the first person ever to do it in the entire country) is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie that would exempt him from still having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per profile in Jet Magazine (https://books.google.com/books?id=mbkDAAAAMBAJ, November 18, 1965). The article is entitled "Hot Mayoral Races in Two Other Ohio Cities," and includes about two full pages of text about the 1965 election. There is also a blurb about Crawford in Jet when he resigned from the Commission to be the Commission clerk. --Enos733 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 20 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.

[1] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2017/10/12/wealth-management-secrets-of-the-super-rich-and-single-family-offices/#65cd9252715d

[2] ttps://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/The-Future-of-Family-Offices.pdf

[1]

[2]