Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Catena

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

WP:N WP:NOTPROMO Raider1918 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is somewhat promotional and needs to be trimmed back to the bones, but there are some sources which seem to indicate that she might be notable enough. [1] [2] [3]. - Mr X 🖋 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This entry is in appreciation for, and response to, MrX's comment. The article contains only two references: of these, only one is about the subject; the other is an article from an ad agency about an ad campaign commissioned by the subject (it only contains one quote from her). The promotional nature of the entry is further bolstered by the "External Links" section, which contains an oped written by the subject about the aforementioned ad campaign, a link to a TedX talk, and an interview from an alumni publication. Certainly, these sources point to a certain level of professional accomplishment, but as MrX notes, are they (or other sources readily available online) "notable enough"? Wikipedia provides guidelines to help guide us: its guidelines for people says that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The emphasis here should be on "significant" and "reliable." If we take significant to mean widespread, an internet search and a review of the above sources do not support a degree of notability warranting a Wikipedia entry. Most articles appear "reliable," in that they truthfully and accurately reflect facts, but run afoul of another, connected requirement of notability: the need for sufficient "reliable independent sources." Opeds written by the subject and articles from an ad agency commissioned by the subject would have a hard time convincing readers of independence. Many individuals achieve a level of achievement in their respective fields, but nonetheless fail to reach the notability requirements put in place to warrant an entry on Wikipedia; a review of the current entry and other sources suggest that this is the case here. (Raider1918 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I don't know about promotional - in the coverage I find, I see that she has received awards from Italy [4], [5] and France [6], which are not mentioned in the article at all! although the source for the French award is. There is other coverage too: [7], reports of a talk which she had given here [8] and here [9]. I suggest that with the awards and the coverage, she meets WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2018 (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. Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Buzan

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

I have no idea how this has survived so long, the main claim to notability is unsourced and hyperbolic, the sources for the article lack reliability and intellectual independence, all seem to be affiliated in some way, apart form the patent filings, which can't establish notability. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not rise to the level required by WP:NBIO. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably survived so long because he's notable. Had a BBC TV series in the 1970s, was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2011, his books have sold millions of copies, and has enough coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13]. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Further articles on Buzan found via the British Newspaper Aarchive from the Liverpool Echo from 1986 and two from the Irish Independent from 2002. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, well done! Guy (Help!) 11:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @UnitedStatesian: Pinging to see what you think about the sources Michig posted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote above based on some of the sources unearthed by @Michig: (though noting that one is a press release, and that a newspaper that mentions "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" shows ignorance of how that process works. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the good work done by Michig above. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2018 (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 The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckaroo Banzai (character)

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

Ten years ago, after the last Talk page entry was a discussion that noted this article had been tagged as In-universe, the tag was apparently removed and no work has been done on the article. Only now was the tag put it back: In-universe is affecting the Biography and Other media sections. The remaining section "Further adventures" duplicates information already found in the main article. But this entire article is unneeded. It is unreferenced except for two refs in the lead, and those do not appear to provide material to this article. —Prhart com♥ 19:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Vorbee (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the WP:OR there's nothing to merge; it duplicates information already found in the main article. —Prhart com♥ 12:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Wysong

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

Unsourced, not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. No significant reliable source coverage to meet any standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USA Today states that he used a pen name. Also, active over a decade ago, ergo, archive searches are essential. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the pen name, I missed that. That completely changes the search results - striking delete vote above. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEYMANN] I want first to note that Nom and editor writing above give no indication of being aware that this author used a pen name, although A. Frank Steward is a useful search term, turning up book reviews and articles that do not appear in searches on his actual name. note also that neither editor above gave any indication of having run news archive searches, although it is a truth universally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, authors will be notable only for a few years around the publication of their more popular books. Wysong/Steward published books between 2001 and 2008. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Part of what is GREAT - and user friendly - about Wikipedia is that you can look up the popular writers of yore, when you stumble into one. We KEEP writers like Louise Hall Tharp, Elaine Macmann Willoughby, Wilfrid S. Bronson, and Mary Nash (author) - even though nobody reads them anymore. (end of rant) WP:HEY, I have added some material, sources to the page, more reviews exist and can be added, although I believe that I have added enough to show that it should be kept. Quite a few hits where he is quoted as-an-expert on the air travel experience. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, yeah, this probably started as author PROMO, eons ago. Passes WP:AUTHOR because of the many book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M. Gregory's changes and arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage to say he has received "significant coverage" if you include material under the pen-name. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snippy

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

WP:DICDEF. No new examples provided in the 11 years given to provide new examples. The coverage of what Al Gore said is about what Al Gore said, not the word snippy. wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a WP:COATRACK for the Gore/Bush anecdote; it contains virtually nothing on snippy-ness per se. Redirecting is not really an option, since the word is marginally related to Irritability, but this title also relates marginally to Snip (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Grabiner

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

Not convinced this biography of a businessman meets WP:GNG. The Telegraph article is not a trivial mention and would count towards notability. Other than that, the coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. I have looked for other sources and seen mentions of Grabiner in the context of Philip Green, but they only appear to be passing mentions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nxt

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

BaconBach wrote on Talk:Nxt: It's not a notable project (WP:N) and there are literally no references. This does not pass WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBach (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proxy nomination for BaconBach. I have no opinion. MER-C 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I too see no RS coverage, and only mentions in bottom-of-the-barrel crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nomination. And not a moment too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)~~ See below for changed !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. DeMartino, Ian (2016). The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World's First Decentralized Cryptocurrency. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63450-524-6. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  Nxt, pronounced "Next," is a "Crypto 2.0" (i.e., next-generation) coin that is among the most powerful of those available. It has one of the most active developer communities and its 2.0 features are among the most commonly used. Nxt features a decentralized marketplace for digital goods, a digital "token" or asset exchange, a monetary system that allows the easy creation of currencies secured on the Nxt blockchain, a messaging system, and an alias system. It is also the flagship coin in the SuperNET system, which combines several blockchains and allows them to communicate.
  These features came out over time since the currency's 2013 release and new features are constantly added. Like Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto, Nxt's creator chose to remain anonymous and went by the name BCNext before disappearing in a fashion similar to Nakamoto.
  Although the Nxt community is one of the coin's strongest assets, it has also proven to be one of its biggest liabilites as well. Early on in its history, the community split for reasons that still aren't clear. This split led to the creation of two message boards, causing confusion for newcomers that persists to this day. There have also been a few scams involving members or former members of the community that further hurt the coin's reputation.
  Nxt has also been subject to a few Bitcoin-style hacks. Although all these have had to do with exchange security or user error more than the security of the coin itself, Nxt is stored entirely online—and the lack of easily stored offline wallets is sometimes blamed for the issue. In 2014, one of Nxt's biggest exchanges, Bter, lost 50 million NXT. The community considered a hard fork to reverse the effects of the hack but decided this wouldn't be fair to people who made legitimate transactions during the time between the hack and the hard fork. It was also thought this would set a bad precedent in the community.
  [Four more paragraphs.]
2. Franco, Pedro (2015). Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 203–204. ISBN 978-1-119-01916-9. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  12.7.5 Nxt
  
  Nxt uses a different code base than Bitcoin, written from scratch. Nxt also creates its own blockchain, secured using a 100% proof-of-stake system. The main applications of Nxt are a decentralized exchange, voting system, messaging, and DNS.
  Addresses use elliptic curve public key cryptography24. Transactions, and other mes- sages, are registered in the blockchain. Nxt blockchain uses a proof-of-stake algorithm (14.2.1). Nxt assumes that all clients in the network run a full node. Addresses where at least one incoming transaction has been confirmed by 1440 blocks are called unlocked addresses or active accounts. These addresses are eligible to generate the next proof-of- stake block (Nxt wiki, 2014b).
  The native currency of Nxt is NXT, with an initial supply of 1 billion NXTs (Nxt wiki, 2014a). Nxt blocks have a field called the generation signature. Active accounts sign the generation signature with their private key and then hash the signature. If the resulting hash is lower than the target, then the active account can generate the next block, obtaining all the fees. Creating blocks is called forging blocks, in contrast with Bitcoin's mining, which requires computational power. The target for every active account is weighted by the amount of funds in that address (thus the proof-of-stake) and increases (doubles) every second until a node in the network forges the next block. This network target is tuned so that new blocks are forged on average every 60 seconds.
  [Four more paragraphs]
3. Prypto (2016). Bitcoin for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 170. ISBN 978-1-119-07613-1. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  NXT: Using Proof-of-Stake for Transaction Consensus
  
  Unlike bitcoin's consensus through mining, NXT (http://nxt.org) uses proof-of-stake to reach a transaction consensus. Additionally, NXT is one of the very few crypto-currencies that has no mining process — all coins were distributed during the launch of this altcoin. Having a steady supply of coins, available at any given time, created a new ecosystem in the world of crypto-currency.
  What makes NXT truly interesting is the fact that any user can create their own crypto-currency within the NXT ecosystem. All newly created coins are backed by NXT currency and can be distributed in a variety of ways.
  In more recent times, NXT has gradually introduced new features such as smart contracts, an arbitary messaging service, and a proper decentralized peer-to-peer exchange platform called MultiGateWay.
4. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  NXT
  
  NXT (pronounced "Next") is a "pure" proof-of-stake alt coin, in that it does not use proof-of-work mining. NXT is a from-scratch implementation of a cryptocurrency, not a fork of bitcoin or any other alt coins. NXT implements many advanced features, including a name registry (similar to Namecoin), a decentralized asset exchange (similar to Colored Coins), integrated decentralized and secure messaging (similar to Bitmessage), and stake delegation (to delegate proof-of-stake to others). NXT adherents call it a "next-generation" or 2.0 cryptocurrency.
  - Block generation: 1 minute
  - Total currency: No limit
  - Consensus algorithm: Proof-of-stake
  - Market capitalization: $30 million in mid-2014
5. Lee, David Kuo Chen; Low, Linda (2018). Inclusive FinTech: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and ICO. New York: World Scientific. p. 90. ISBN 978-981-3272-76-7. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  After the token sale of Mastercoin, NXT started its ICO in September 2013. NXT is the first cryptocurrency that uses purely Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, and it has a static total supply of 1 billion coins. In the ICO, it raised 21 bitcoins that were worth roughly USD17,000. As of September 2, 2017, the price of NXT was around USD0.12, making it the most profitable investment cryptocurrency with a return on investment (ROI) of over 669 times.
6. Ciaiana, Pavel; Rajcaniova, Miroslava; Kancs, d'Artis (January 2018). "Virtual relationships: Short- and long-run evidence from BitCoin and altcoin markets". Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. 52. Elsevier: 173–195. doi:10.1016/j.intfin.2017.11.001. ISSN 1042-4431. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  For example, NxT, NEM and SuperNET have distributed all coins at the time when the currency was released, implying a zero-growth rate.
  ...
  Only the prices of Ethereum, NameCoin, NxT and SuperNET are found to be affected by the BitCoin price. Note that only Ethereum and NameCoin are based on the same PoW transaction validation mechanism as BitCoin. NxT applies the PoS mechanism, while SuperNET is a basket of alternative virtual currencies. In terms of the total coin supply, only NameCoin, NxT and SuperNET apply the maximum limit to the coin supply (as BitCoin does) whereas Ethereum has an unlimited coin supply (Table 3).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nxt to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your refbombing is mostly passing mentions at best. Antonopoulos' explicitly promotional work on Bitcoin should not be treated as evidence of notability, same reason we don't treat crypto blogs as evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Skyhorse Publishing-published The Bitcoin Guidebook book by Ian DeMartino provides eight paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
The John Wiley & Sons-published Understanding Bitcoin book by Pedro Franco provides seven paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
These two sources by themselves are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
These two sources are not "passing mentions" or "crypto blogs".
Andreas M. Antonopoulos' book Mastering Bitcoin was published by the reputable publisher O'Reilly Media. According to https://books.google.com/books?id=IXmrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR4, the book's editors were Mike Loukides and Allyson MacDonald, the book's production editor was Melanie Yarbrough, the book's copyeditor was Kim Cofer, and the book's proofreader was Carla Thornton. The content about Nxt is neutrally written. This book was published by a reputable publisher and had plenty of editorial oversight. I do not consider the book to be an "explicitly promotional work on Bitcoin" (please provide evidence that it is promotional), though even if the source is discounted, the books by Ian DeMartino and Pedro Franco are sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, we're arguing about extant sources and Cunard identified a bunch of them. That's what we're supposed to do in such discussions! It's not "refbombing" by any stretch of the term. The essay on reference overkill is about something else, i.e. about cluttering up the text of existing articles with unnecessary, repetitive, or irrelevant citations. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found. This had been deleted 3 times in previous AFDS some of which were created with different names, i think once deleted it should be SALTED. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources found. – significant coverage about Nxt in multiple book sources have been presented.
This had been deleted 3 times in previous AFDS some of which were created with different names, i think once deleted it should be SALTED – this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.
PlotHelpful has 66 edits in total. PlotHelpful made their first edits in January 2017 and made no further edits until 22 November 2018.
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks a perfectly reasonable and policy-based opinion to me - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlotHelpful's comment says "No reliable sources found" but does not explain why these two are not reliable sources:

The Bitcoin Guidebook book by Ian DeMartino and published by the Skyhorse Publishing which provides eight paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
The Understanding Bitcoin book by Pedro Franco and published by the John Wiley & Sons which provides seven paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.

Cunard (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article, as it now stands, contains precisely zero references. (There is a section it it, titled "References," which stands empty of content.) And that's almost two weeks after the article has been nominated for deletion. It would be great to see some or all of the sources Cunard dug up worked into the article and then decide if it's worth staying up. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all of the sources I presented here to the article except for the contested Andreas M. Antonopoulos source.
Cunard (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the brief mentions in articles about bitcoin as substantial enough for this to be notable or beyond a run-of-the-mill cryptocurrency website. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot in all honesty reject the evidence of notability in the sources provided by Cunard. I notice that there has been no attempt to refute them but only blanket dismissals, with the accusation of "refbombing" to boot, which is absurd given that looking for references (and as many as possible) in an AfD debate is precisely what we're supposed to do. No matter how one feels about cryptocurrencies, this article now has the prerequisites to stay up. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position, The Gnome (talk · contribs). I greatly appreciate it. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the 15 paragraphs of coverage in the Skyhorse Publishing and John Wiley & Sons books (among other sources), here are more sources about the subject:
- Popov, Serguei (December 2016). "A Probabilistic Analysis of the Nxt Forging Algorithm". Ledger. 1. D-Scribe Digital Publishing: 69–83. doi:10.5195/LEDGER.2016.46. ISSN 2379-5980. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
- "Call for evidence: Investment using virtual currency or distributed ledger technology" (PDF). European Securities and Markets Authority. 2015-04-22. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  Here is information about the report:
  ESMA has been monitoring and analysing virtual currency investment over the last 6 months, to understand developments in the market, potential benefits or risks for investors, market integrity or financial stability, and to support the functioning of the EU single market.
  ESMA’s analysis is set out in this paper. ESMA is seeking to share its analysis in order to promote wider understanding of innovative market developments, and invites market participants and other stakeholders to submit feedback and any additional information on the following topics: ...
  The report notes:
  With NXT, another VC, every user can be assigned the role to validate or “forge” NXT. One difference between bitcoin and NXT is that all NXTs exist already, as opposed to bitcoins of which around 2/3 of the final amount of bitcoin exists today. Users of NXT can earn NXT by forging. Forging fulfils essentially the same role for NXT as mining does for bitcoins, i.e. validating a set of transactions, only that rewards are not new NXT but the transaction fees contained in each block. Also, the process is different in the sense that the competitive set-up of validating bitcoin transactions requires a lot more computing power than the allocative set-up of validating NXT transactions. The processing of a block takes 1-1.5 minutes and the recommended confirmation time is 10 blocks, i.e. 10- 15 minutes.
  ...
  975 shares and other assets have been created and transacted so far via Colored Coin and NXT. Since the start of NXTs asset exchange in May 2014 around 50 new assets have been created each month.
  ...
  The benefit of cost and speed equally holds for issuers in terms of listing an asset on an asset exchange. In the case of the NXT asset exchange, a listing currently costs 1000 NXT (currently around 10 Euro) one-off plus transaction costs when sending rewards to investors.
That the peer-reviewed academic journal Ledger (a journal published by the University of Pittsburgh's D-Scribe Digital Publishing that is dedicated to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology research) covered Nxt's forging algorithm in an extensive article and that the EU regulatory agency European Securities and Markets Authority covered Nxt in a report further establishes it is notable.
Here are more sources:
1. Finberg, Ron (2014-01-09). "Digital Currencies 2.0: Meet NXT, the 'Next' Ripple". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
2. Zawadzki, Sabina (2014-07-21). Gaunt, Jeremy (ed.). "Bitcoin competitor NXT in modest start to trade vs the dollar". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
3. Jacobsen, Stine; Zawadzki, Sabina (2014-07-18). Walker, Sophie (ed.). "Danish virtual bourse to trade NXT 'cryptocurrency' for real money". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
4. Mizrahi, Avi (2017-09-14). "BNP Paribas and Accenture Spain Test Nxt Blockchain Technology". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
5. Haines, Lester (2014-11-20). "NXT: The first SPAAAACE cryptocurrency". The Register. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
6. Wienberg, Christian (2014-07-18). "Bitcoin Is Challenged as Danish Bourse Offers NXT Trading". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
7. Bjorøy, Trond Vidar (2017-09-21). "Ardor could fix key blockchain weaknesses — if it can get its message out". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. I've been keeping an eye on this AFD. The two longest book sources above are probably okay for notability, though not as strong as the coverage primarily dedicated to Nxt. I was aware of the ESMA report since it's mentioned in the article. Just those might not be good enough but combined with the newest ones posted it is. Ranking from best to worst: Ledger, Reuters/Bloomberg, The Register, Finance Magnates ("formerly Forex Magnates" Did they change their name because of cryptocurrency?), then VentureBeat which is labelled as a "guest" post (would be better than FM if it wasn't). Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is VB "guest" another word for "advertorial blog"? - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Ledger article, Reuters quotes and two books above meet the requirements of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, notwithstanding that some of the others are obvious trash.AlasdairEdits (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of influential Muslims of the 16th Century

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

Unclear inclusion criteria ... "influential", lacks sourcing. WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Each name should have a citation next to it, but I thought the idea of this list seems sound, I see nothing wrong with it other than failing to have no citations per name. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and describe inclusion criteria. It could be an interesting list, but seems to be largely royalty/aristocracy - it doesn't include several people in the List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, for example, including a jurist and theologian, a geographer, a qadi and historian, a physician, mathematician, clockmaker and astronomer, and an Islamic scholar and mystic. There are several other lists of Muslim scientists and scholars which also include 16th century notables, who could surely be called 'influential'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, passes WP:NLIST, sources are easy to find in the individual articles so current sourcing is not a reason to delete, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally cross-categorise based on religion and we certainly don't for people being "influential". Who gets to decide who is influential? Ajf773 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps rename. The inclusion criteria, while perhaps not explicit, are implied by the section titles. This is a List of 16th-century office holders in the Islamic world. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad and ill-defined. Daughters and most (though not all) of the wives of sultans weren't particularly "influential", religious leaders already have their own list (List of 16th-century religious leaders#Islam), Ottoman sultans don't really need a sublist of List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Influential" is an arbitrary and subjective criteria for inclusion. If one deleted that word, it is basically just a category intersection. I don't see what value a list adds to categories in this very broad case. SJK (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists of people by religion by century are just too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of pashas, princesses and religious leaders - these are some of the subheads. "influential" is far to vague a definition for a List. many names are not bluelinked, but even if all of the non-bluelinked ones were deleted, clicking on some of the names leaves me puzzles ad to what makes some of them "influential" - the sole sourced statements regarding Ismihan Sultan is that she bore two sons and that, according to a legend, she "suffered" in her marriage. We have already a list of List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Mostly, I'm just wondering how we ope rationalize "influential."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess of WP:OR and WP:NPOV about some alleged "influence" that is offered unsupported. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is "Influenital"?LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 21:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a source can be found for such a list, it fails WP:LISTN. There is in fact an article on an annual publication The 500 Most Influential Muslims, but without a source for a list for 16th century, it looks like WP:OR. Hzh (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2018 (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. Closed as "no consensus" because of lack of participation. No prejudice against renominating this after a few months. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Beer Day

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

I was actually the author of most of this article as it stands and the one who added in most of the sources. "Green Beer Day" as it's listed here isn't about St. Patrick's Day-- it's about a party at Miami University in Ohio which happens every year. Most of the sources are student newspaper sources (which I've seen in previous AFDs be marked as not meeting the GNG) and some sources about the lack of safety with the tradition.

I'm nominating this because it's bothered me for awhile, and I think it'd be better if this was a paragraph in the Miami University article instead of its own thing-- the article title should be redirected to St. Patrick's Day in my opinion. But wanted to bring this to the wider community instead of just going with what my gut says here. Nomader (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miami University or keep. From my cursory search, coverage of the event seemed to be significant, at least in regional, non-student papers and news outlets. While I agree with you that the information is better served in the main Miami article, it appears to meet GNG, in my opinion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Gibson

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

Time for another AfD, as GRG fanboys flooded the previous AfD after some off-wiki canvassing. This article is absolutely rife with irrelevant cruft, even more so than most other pages in this topic (which is truly an achievement), and once stripped of that it's the same old "she lived a long time, she died". WP:NOPAGE. Maybe a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was widowed for 50 years, lived in the same home for 80 years, was in a commercial advertisement, and the standard longevity secret. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the three lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just living a long time does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage - only in-state newspaper reports of her birthdays until after she died. Does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Goldhar

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

Non-notable businessman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has been profiled in Forbes magazine and owns Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C., a team that regularly appears in UEFA competitions. PK T(alk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a profile in forbes is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not by itself, but a profile in Forbes AND ownership of a well-known sports team/franchise is pretty persuasive. PK T(alk) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SmartCentres, which is notable and owned by the subject (who does not seem to meet our notability criteria). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he passes notability. One of the richest businessmen in Canada. Skirts89 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant coverage, including this which credits him for establishing Walmart in Canada, this which is one of many I found associated with a lawsuit, and this one which isn't as in-depth as I like to see but does talk about him in several paragraphs and gives some background on who he is. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 5 December 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kila Siku

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

Half the article content is not about the organisation but about the situation in the DR Congo. No sources I can see suggest that it is notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any sources. Maybe someone with access to Swahili language sources can find something, but I wouldn't be surprised if a 40 person group is simply not WP:ORG notable.- Mr X 🖋 01:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, I can only find a minor mention in the Chicago Tribune, which reads like an ad. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references or evidence of notability. However, if swahili language references are added per MrX, this automatically becomes an abstention until I get the chance to look at the updated article. But, given that it has been unreferenced since May 2015, that seems unlikely. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Z

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

Promotional article with subject not meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to establish notability for now it's WP:TOOSOON. ShunDream (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I objected to the proposed deletion because: the article has been improved to include several additional reliable sources (current count: 9 unique references); text has been modified to eliminate promotional tone; subject is a notable figure in a category with little representation (comments copied here for your convenience). Also, a challenge with this subject is that many sources are written in the Hebrew language. If permitted to remain, the article could be expanded with additional sources by readers of the Hebrew language. Thank you for your patience as I am new to this process. Terri.T (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has also received attention for his cinematic music videos. I added a Music video section and included additional sources (current count: 19 sources). Terri.T (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Terri.T on this. A quick google search can find many good sources, and as noted, many sources in Hebrew. The article definitely needs some work with more in-line citations and copyediting, but it doesn't need to be deleted.Awsomaw (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestions, Awsomaw. Today, I did some copyediting and expanded the Career section with more in-line citations from reliable sources, including the NY Daily News and the Sun Sentinel. Terri.T (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Awsomaw: What "good sources" were you able to find from your quick good search? Most sources only mentioned him in passing. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Admittedly, most of these sources were on the 3rd page of the google search, so I guess it may not be a super quick google search, but they're sources nonetheless. Awsomaw (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: additional Hebrew language sources (I had to use Google Translate): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Terri.T (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 5 December 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Outerwear

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

Fails WP:CORP no significant independent coverage, the press releases and blogs are not sufficient to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not saying it's enough, but these (Cengage) seem independent: [14][15][16]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is non-trivial, independent coverage in the form of case studies in at least four books. Also, there is some independent news coverage (excluding coverage spawned by press releases).- MrX 🖋 23:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi MrX, can you please provide the titles of the books (or even better, links) that contain the case studies please? Also, please provide links to the independent news coverage you refer to above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - [17][18][19][20][21][22] By the way, there are convenient links at the top of the page that allow you to do the same Google searches that I used to find these.- Mr X 🖋 19:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets independent coverage and notability requirements. Specifically, see the sources linked to by MrX --DannyS712 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 December 2018 (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. No evidence of independent notability provided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Roberts Gillan

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

People article is only one paragraph about famous people’s siblings; her “notability” is only derived from family members. I can’t find significant coverage / reliable sources for herself and career. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - her numerous film roles are not significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Argento Surfer

Keep - She is an important member of an important family and she is also an actress in her own right. What the page needs in more info, not deletion. User:Don Macleay (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’re gonna be hard pressed to find it, and even if you do, all “notability” still falls on Julia. (And 10 of her “roles” were in Julia’s films and tv appearances for what it’s worth.)Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find a review that gave significant consideration to her in a non-family sense. She can't inherit notability so can't qualify that way. She is rather google unfriendly (since her sister blocks out most consideration, but is always mentioned so can't be cut out). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sekandar Amanolahi-Baharvand

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, his citation count is anemic (high of 28), and he doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have no evidence of passing WP:PROF. That may well be because of the language barrier, but we can't base an article on our ignorance of whether sources exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion yet on the subject's notability. Just pointing out that there is at least one alternate spelling: a Worldcat listing refers to Amān Allāhī Bahārvand, Sikandar. I haven't looked at Worldcat library holdings in a long time, so I don't know if the one book being held in >100 libraries is significant or not. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:41, 2 December 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowfax Technologies

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Google search threw back their fundraising and advertorial. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever, just press releases and similar articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a fluff piece padded with information about their funding. Zero actual notability available in WP:RS. A quick search of the article creator's name indicates an obvious WP:COI, so this might be a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for G11 (& twice previously deleted G11) but Atlantic306 disagreed. Still, it'll be useful to have A4 available the next time it comes back. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Sounds like this is Advertising or SoapBoxing more than anything. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising Skirts89 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NCORP as per nom Spiderone 19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising misterpottery (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just native advertising. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Barnes

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

He fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple significant coverage from secondary reliable sources (the second reference in the article is not SIGCOV at all) and WP:NACTOR for lack of multiple significant roles in notable films or shows. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is non-notable. Skirts89 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of minor roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are no plausible counterarguments that this passes MUSICBIO #5. As there is enough verifiable material to create a sufficiently contextual article, it is not shown how deleting this article about a likely notable subject would improve the encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noah K

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly does not meet any of items 2-12. I examined all the references in the article, and did my own searching, to see if he meets item 1 (subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works...).

What I found was short reviews of album releases, routine biographical blurbs from places selling his recordings, and self-published or self-authored material. Many of these are in WP:RS, but do not meet the non-trivial and/or independent requirements.

My searching included, in addition to Google, New York City newspapers which might cover local talent. I searched NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Village Voice, and DNA Info. All I could find is another Noah Kaplan who is a real estate agent.

The primary author of this article is a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI, and possibly WP:UPE. Article was originally in draft space, then moved to mainspace by the author, bypassing the review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Smith:. First of all, he passes WP:MUSICBIO #10 since he composed and performed music in Once and Again. That line was recently removed from the article because it cited IMDb, but should be returned with the episode of the show itself ("Chance of a Lifetime") as the source, since K appeared as himself in the show performing his music on saxophone. In addition, K passes WP:MUSICBIO #5. The Noah Kaplan Quartet has two albums on HatHut Records, one of the most important jazz labels in the history of jazz and classical music (take a look at its roster). It is distributed in the US by Naxos of America, which is major distribution. Further, WP:MUSICBIO #1 is met through reviews in Downbeat, the preeminent magazine in Jazz. Multiple in depth reviews of K's work in All About Jazz (another major Jazz outlet) are full of biographical details. Not to mention the WNYC feature on Soundcheck, his music on NPR's All Things Considered, interviews with major music promoters (Annie O) and articles in New Music Box. The book he edited (Manual of Quarter-Tone Harmony- WorldCat source is cited) is in many leading university libraries across the country and in Europe and New Zealand. AllMusic is another source used in almost all music biographical articles to substantiate album info etc. Please stop accusing me of WP:UPE I've told you multiple times that I was not paid in any way to write this article. The article is neutral, non-promotional and well sourced by independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Please remove the deletion tag. Artaria195 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO, this is non-notable Skirts89 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skirts89: Aren’t you supposed to provide support and evidence for your assertion in this forum? How exactly does he not meet WP: MUSICBIO #5, #1 and #10? Artaria195 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 17:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source supporting WP:MUSICBIO #1: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1331&bih=892&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=9pr1W7T5AcWQ5gL4s4OYCg&q=jazz+and+tzaz+issue+232+233+melody+gardot&oq=jazz+and+tzaz+issue+232+233+melody+gardot&gs_l=img.3...19023.23042..23162...0.0..0.180.2050.23j4......1....1..gws-wiz-img.dESa-RL1eDE#imgrc=cfvsO5IljZ-DeM:. K is a featured cover story in issue 232/233 of the Greek magazine Jazz and Tzaz. This is major coverage in an international, independent, reliable and non-trivial source. I am adding it and the Once and Again episode citation to the article. Artaria195 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was asked to wade in by the article's creator. My main area of editing is jazz. Noah K has had two albums released by Hathut Records. As the Hathut article states, that label has existed for decades and has released albums by lots of well-known jazz musicians. Noah K therefore meets criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." This is sufficient in itself for the article to be kept. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added some more sourced material. He's not exactly a major figure, but there's plenty of material about him out there. EddieHugh (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know anything about Noah K. But I looked at the article and I asked the question we are all supposed to ask about articles proposed for deletion. Not: Do I like him, is he any good, is he important, or will his name go down in history. But: Are there enough sources to support an article of substance? The answer is yes. Not potential sources in the future, mind you, not something buried that someone someday might find, but sources that exist in the article here and now. The answer is yes. If you want examples of jazz articles that have much less content and few or no sources, see the Jazz Cleanup Listing here. Over five thousand articles need work and some of them aren't even jazz. The backlog goes back eleven years.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've gone through the same review of the sources and he does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I considered rejecting the article in draftspace but considering I was a participant in a related AfD I sent it through to the 'keeper, only for the article creator to bypass AfC completely. There's also clearly canvassing happening here. SportingFlyer talk 23:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? He has 2 albums released by an important independent label, thereby meeting #5. Do you dispute this? If so, please explain in what way(s). If not, then please change your "delete". EddieHugh (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why that label meets #5? I did some research and they appear to be a very niche label, without much discussion in independent secondary sources, in spite of what looks like a long list of releases. SportingFlyer talk 00:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. #5 requires a label to have "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This one was formed in 1974 and its roster can be seen at Hathut Records. Its roster includes many of the key people of free jazz, such as Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang and Anthony Braxton. I appreciate that this is not exactly mainstream, chart-topping stuff, but these musicians are pivotal in this particular field. Anyway, don't just take my word about the label being important, you can read the Grove entry here (or at least, if a non-subscriber, enough to get the point, given that this is a key reference work for music). EddieHugh (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through its discography, it still doesn't appear to me to be a label which would automatically grant someone notability, especially in their more recent releases. SportingFlyer talk 02:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a label which would automatically grant someone notability" is not a criterion, either for a musician's notability or a record label's. In fact, it's directly contradicted by the actual criterion (#5), which requires at lease 2 releases, making 'automatic notability' impossible. I've quoted the actual criterion (#5, the one that we are obliged to follow) above twice; Hathut meets it, so Noah K does too. (As an aside, go to the list of recent releases... the 4 most recent are all by people/ensembles that have Wikipedia articles.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the actual criterion: "many of whom are independently notable". How many is "many"? Here's a list from the first four tables at Wikipedia's Hathut page (covering a lot less than half of their listed discography): Joe McPhee, Steve Lacy, Baikida Carroll, Phillip Wilson, David Murray, David S. Ware, Irène Schweizer, Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang, Dave Burrell, Max Roach, Anthony Braxton, Jerome Cooper, Léon Francioli, Radu Malfatti, Archie Shepp, Burton Greene, Alan Silva, Sun Ra, Irene Aebi, Steve Potts, Sunny Murray, Pierre Favre, Michel Portal, Mal Waldron, Karen Borca, Brion Gysin, Lauren Newton, Denis Charles, Donald Knaack, Vienna Art Orchestra, Tony Coe, Tony Oxley, Mike Westbrook, Rova Saxophone Quartet, Werner Lüdi, Pauline Oliveros, Fritz Hauser, Vyacheslav Ganelin, Marianne Schroeder, John Zorn, Franz Koglmann. Is that enough for "many"? If anyone would like a complete list from the same page, please let me know, but 43 is enough for me. EddieHugh (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: As the article's original creator I've been staying out of the conversation for a while to see what the consensus is. But, since it has been relisted, I'm curious if you are willing to change your delete vote given that K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5. If not, can you and other editors who've voted delete please explain your reasoning in light of the thorough explanation provided for how HatHut and K meet #5 as well as the updated sources in the article including the Irish Times? I appreciate your thoughtful and good faith consideration, Artaria195 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 14:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say this respectfully and in good faith, but having watched this process play out through your constant canvassing/trying to draw users back into discussion on the two articles you actually care about/refusal to accept other users disagree with you on the notability of your WP:SPA topics, I'm convinced you're WP:NOTHERE, and I don't care to comment on the articles you're pushing any further. Please leave me alone going forward, and good luck. SportingFlyer talk 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I waited until after the article was relisted, and when no one posted any further opinions, I asked the nominator and editors who had simply voted "delete per nom" to reconsider in light of the thorough discussion of WP:MUSICBIO #5, the revisions and the source additions. According to WP:PERNOM, "delete per nom" is an "argument to avoid in deletion discussion" as " AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes." More generally, this discussion should be about the article, not an attack on me personally. I find it frustrating that there has been a serious and good faith effort to address RoySmith's initial objections through a discussion of how K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5, the addition of sources to the article and substantial revisions. I'm a little confused as to why amongst the deletion votes there is a refusal to reconsider or explain the objections when I and others have acted in good faith to address them. The notability of K is no longer an issue here. Artaria195 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician may be notable if at least one of the criteria are met. Put another way: even assuming that one of the criteria on the list is met, notability is not automatically granted to the subject. Wikipedia's general notability guideline provides that a topic is presumed notable if the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article do not meet this threshold. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoi: according to general notability guideline "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Are you saying that the sources don't contain this? If so, please read the DownBeat articles, NYC Jazz Record articles and All About Jazz articles as a starting place. None of these are "trivial mentions" and these are three of the most influential jazz publications, with DownBeat being the most influential in the field (akin to Rolling Stone for rock, you can read about that here). Further, K had a cover story length feature article in a Greek Jazz Magazine that is cited. There are plenty more sources still. Is that not enough to meet guideline #1? In addition, he clearly meets #5 beyond any further discussion and meets #10. The fact that he clearly meets #5 puts the onus on those voting to "delete" to really prove how he can meet the guideline, yet still not be notable. That means doing the research necessary to evaluate the quality of the sources if jazz and other niche music isn't an area of expertise. Two expert editors from WikiProject Jazz, who have edited many articles on jazz musicians and deleted many too, have both voted to keep the article based on their evaluations. Artaria195 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've done some more research and found articles in All About Jazz Italy, Italy's main jazz magazine, about K as well. I've added a citation for the most recent one to the article. The multiple articles in All About Jazz Italy plus the Jazz and Tzaz article show significant coverage in reliable international publications. Earlier this year he was also featured in All About Jazz Italy's column "What I'm listening to Now" here which though not a fully independent source itself, is further proof that he is considered notable by All About Jazz Italy. Additionally, according to K's website, he has been written about in The Wire, Dusted Magazine and a several online blogs and magazines. These are more independent reliable sources that can be included if one is inclined. All this to say that there are more than enough sources available that easily meet the general notability guideline to prevent this article from being deleted. Artaria195 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 with albums on Hathut Records. Zingarese talk · contribs 18:23, 5 December 2018 (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 List of Marvel Comics characters: R#Reaper. Content can be merged from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 19:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper (Gunther Strauss)

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

This fictional character is not notable independent of Marvel Comics and insignificant within the fiction itself. There are three incoming links from article space, and none of them are inline. An IP removed my PROD and added a merge template pointing to List of Marvel Comics characters: R, but that list is not intended to be exhaustive. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: R or maybe List of Marvel Comics Golden Age characters. One RS is more than what most of these minor characters have, so a brief note on this guy somewhere seems like it would be a good idea. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R. I don't see even one secondary reliable source. Everything about this character comes directly from Marvel Comics. As such, there's no way it meets the requirements for a standalone article. A two-sentence mention in the list of characters is about the limit, in my judgement. There's some trivia about this character on the web in fanwikis, and that's where it belongs, not in an encyclopedia. Amsgearing (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City" was apparently published by Pocket Books. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge per BOZ~~ withdrawing !vote Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - aside from the fact that one non-primary source is used to cite a plot element, what is the value of adding this character to a list? As far as I can tell, he's appeared in exactly two comic books published by Marvel, a company that routinely published 60+ books per month for most of its 75 years of existence. There are zero inline links to the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Music Rights

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

Article was a draft article submitted by an editor with a conflict of interest. Since creation the article has largely relied upon press releases as references and once given a cleanup leaves very little else to demonstrate notability. Longhair\^talk 14:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any sources outside of press releases. If those PRs are accurate, this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per WP:TOOSOON, trivial and reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to his LinkedIn listing^[1] the CEO and founder of Pro Music Rights is only 19 years old and graduated from high school in 2018 which makes it highly unlikely his company is the third biggest performing rights organization in the USA^[2] yet.

PhilipCowan (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite probable that it's the third biggest PRO in the US, seeing as there were really only two in operation before 2018, and it's only the fifth in history. Whether there are enough in-depth sources about a company that's only been in existence for a few months is another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm. Just press releases and nothing to make out of notability. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too new, fails WP:NORG, sources as mentioned above are PRish or do not significantly cover the subject. JC7V (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2018 (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. GNG not supported by keep votes. Editor's are reminded that, per WP:NRIVALRY, the notion of a rivalry must rreceive significant coverage in a number of third party sources. It is not enough simply for the name to be mentioned in match reporting. It is also highly unlikely that a genuine rivalry garnering such coverage would materialise after only a small number of games and recreation. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Is Real

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

No evidence that this single game was notable. Nothing out iof the ordinary happened, and no titles were decided. Just a routine cup game between two teams that happen to be located nearish to each other. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic draws nearly quadruple, if not quintuple the amount of web results compared to a routine match between teams, and about 7 or 8 times the amount of traffic to a typical U.S. Open Cup game, which meets WP:NOTABLE. Further, the phrase and terminology has received extensive third party coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill cup game between two local sides. Citations/links are WP:ROUTINE coverage.Dougal18 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that FC Cincinnati is in MLS, this will become a regular rivalry, played (likely) three times per year. It already has quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV to help it meet WP:GNG, and should continue to get more as it is played in the future. I plan on rewriting the page in the near future to better reflect that this wasn't just a one-off match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was a one-off match. They have played one time. And if we end up with separate articles for USL Cincinnati and MLS Cincinnati, it will remain a one-off match forever from a WP perspective as any future games will involve a different Cincinnati entity. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, as of "right now" it is a one-off match, but they will be playing more times in the future (barring the unlikely event (at this point) that the Crew aren't sold). And even if we do end up with separate articles for the two clubs, the rivalry would still be contained under one article: Portland Timbers–Seattle Sounders rivalry, Canadian Classique, and Heritage Cup (MLS) are just some of the MLS rivalries that also include rivalry matches from "previous eras" in one or both clubs' histories. We would still include the 2017 match under the Hell is Real banner, just with the note in prose that it occurred during "FC Cincinnati's USL era". The argument of this one has to be over the coverage – not over the status of the match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be better to discuss this on the talk page, but I will wait until I know whether the article is deleted or kept. All I'll say now is that I'm concerned that WP:CRYSTALBALLing might make a delete more likely.Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and has no substantial coverage after the fact. Wait until a few rivalry matches are played before trying to revive this one. Sounder Bruce 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced by GNG arguments. Coverage seems run-of-the-mill to me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and redirect Not real convinced that this meets WP:GNG right now but it seems likely that this will become more clearly notable once Cincinnati actually begins play in MLS. There's also not a very clear redirect except for maybe 2017 U.S. Open Cup#Fourth Round, so that might work. The information is also mostly in the respective teams' articles as well. Jay eyem (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON without prejudice on recreation. The match itself isn't notable, but the rivalry will almost certainly become notable with the new Cincinnati MLS team if Columbus don't end up moving. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the supporters of this article please do something about the coloring of the text and background in the "Results" section? The blue text on a red background is hard to read. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Add six months and this will pass WP:GNG as a rivalry because Cincinnati will have played Columbus in MLS. The two teams and the MLS are desperate to call this an in-state rivalry, and WP:RS will enthusiastically cooperate. Put it on the back burner to allow 21.colinthompson and others improve it so that it's ready for mainspace early in the 2019 MLS season. It will save the effort of re-writing it. Yes, it can be WP:REFUNDed, but I've been around long enough to know that is not what happens, then we have history merge and so on, along with the risk of misattribution. It's more efficient to move to draft and move back later. If the "Hell Is Real" name becomes stale, or is applied to the first game but not the rivalry, then the draft can be moved to whatever people commonly call it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Lee

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. A minor role in a single Broadway production does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is not even clear her one noted role is actualty significant, but multiple significant roles in notable productions are required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viewen

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

Essentially identical to Draft:Viewen that has correctly been rejected twice due to insufficient references, failing notability. Editing pattern of the author also suggests possibility of undeclared paid editing or COI/promo editing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing out there as far as significant coverage so fails WP:NCORP by a mile. Would also suggest locking the page from creation since the creator is so intent on disrupting Wikipedia (posting this to the mainspace despite it being declined twice at AfC). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of satisfying notability guidelines. Clearly some sort of COI editing. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Creator has been banned Daiyusha (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has subsequently been blocked, not banned, and was not evading a block or ban at the time the article was created. WP:G5 speedy deletion ("pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block") is therefore not applicable, and I have declined it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come What May (2009 film)

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

A direct-to-video movie by an unknown director and some homeschooled kids with no professional reviews. Article sources are from press releases apart from Christian Post, which can't establish notability due to its low bar to inclusion for evangelical content and its rather obviously having a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, seems self-promotional as well. Skirts89 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2018 (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 and redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Weaver

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOPAGE. Consists entirely of longevity fancruft. Suggest redirecting to an appropriate list. E Eng 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Of the three lists featuring her, this one has the most specific information. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable WP:GNG with with articles in the Washington Post and The Guardian demonstrating national and international notability. The argument for deletion is "Consists entirely of longevity fancruft", but the contents of the article is from the Washington Post etc. The reason we have criteria for notability is you can't build and encyclopedia on I just don't like it arguments or I like it arguments. -- Unsigned comment by someone
You haven't addressed the basis for the nomination, which isn't notability but rather WP:NOPAGE. The single face that is even arguably nontrivial -- that she was the child of sharecroppers -- can go in a list entry. E Eng 03:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, after the American Civil war, slavery was transformed in part into sharecropping. She wasn't merely the child of sharecroppers, but was born into sharecropping and all the hardships that brought. Having been one of the oldest African American women to have ever lived, there is a reasonable expectation that even more detail about her life will be published in reliable sources. It is also a huge challenge for Wikipedia to expand and maintain articles on women and minorities.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't addressing the NOPAGE argument. E Eng 05:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that she deserves an article because of her family's profession of sharecropping is absurd. Farming has always been a tough industry to make a livelihood in and there were countless millions of sharecroppers, and no one deserves an article based on their gender or race, least of all to make other people feel good or righteous. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is pure WP:I don't like it. You have no idea what sharecropping is, it was not a profession it was slavery for blacks in the South. You also need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for notability. @ENG, first the NOPAGE is not a policy and not a reason to delete a page, it is a consideration when creating an article. Nevertheless, I did address your concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course NOPAGE isn't policy; none of the notability guidelines are policy -- they're guidelines. And if you can't see that a consideration when creating an article is therefore equally a consideration when deleting an article, then I don't think further discussion will be productive. E Eng 18:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of articles on athletes, for example, which don't meet NOPAGE. NOPAGE's weight when compared to GNG and that this is an article about a black woman, gives NOPAGE zero weight. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, plus you clearly still don't understand that NOPAGE has nothing to do with notability. And you better fucking think twice before pulling the race bullshit again, because I've had just about enough of it. But what's wrong with me? Why am I bothering? As predicted, further discussion isn't productive. E Eng 19:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take a deep breath and relax and don't make assumptions about other's intentions. The problem is that non-white people and women are disproportionately under represented in Wikipedia. For example, Bernice Madigan is also under consideration for deletion and she was white. Currently, it is less likely that her article will be deleted than this one even though she is clearly less notable and there is even less to write about her. I would never accuse you of racial and gender bias, but I do think that it is important to consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions when there is a known bias Wikipedia coverage.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't "consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions". We consider the sources available. Bernice Madigan is equally a NOPAGE case. E Eng 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her health history, her family tree, standard longevity secret, and glorification of claimed records. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as none of the sources talk about her in any meaningful depth. She was born and raised in unfortunate circumstances and made a decent life out of it, which is certainly nice but not itself notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find much coverage of her - even when she became the oldest American, it was reported nationally in the US, but using a single Associated Press report, so she doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Other than that, coverage seems mostly to be local. There is the Time article, but still not multiple sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeya Lita

AfDs for this article:

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

The person has no notability in general or as an author/journalist. The language of this BLP article isn't encyclopedic. It highly lacks WP:NPOV. The primary contributor created and edited this article only and had clear intention of adding her name in women writers’ lists only (which is a case of WP:PROMO). Moreover, the notability notice is hanging on since December 2017 and it hasn’t been improved in years. Last time the deletion request ended in no consensus so I am briefly explaining the notability issue this time.

This article doesn’t belong to WP:BASIC because of following reasons.

The person has only coverage as a journalist/reporter in numerous online news portal which do not quality to make notable. She made occasional contributions to known media sources like BBC, and HuffPost, but the volume of the work is low and it doesn’t qualify for WP:BASIC.
There are no primary sources backing the person’s notability. The primary google search outputs belong to Wikipedia and its mirrors, some BBC article which she wrote and maybe on her being threatened (a case of WP:EVENT) somewhere and some articles she wrote for online news portals. Again, online news portals are not likely to back notability of any person or organization.

This article doesn’t fall under WP:ANYBIO because of following reasons.

The person has received no notable awards or nominations.
The person made no widely recognized contribution that could be historical.
The person has no entry in any notable list as a writer or journalist.

This article doesn’t belong to WP:AUTHOR because of following reasons.

The person or her work is not widely recognized. No peer reviewed work as well.
The person originated no significant concept, theory, or technique.
The person made no contribution to any major/notable work. She did write a few books but those have no notability nor that they received any notable critical review.
The person’s work doesn’t belong anywhere as a permanent collection.

Finally, the creation of this article belong to WP:PROMO which Wikipedia is clearly not about. I believe the only contributor contributed mainly to this article significantly backs my claim that this article is intended to self promotion. The contributor also tried to include her as an author in women writer's list and Bangladeshi women writer's list both of the edits were reverted because of her notability issue. — T. 12:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. As it said in previous AFD, online news portals in Bangladesh are not a highly reliable source and do not prove notability every time for any BLP. Even subject has no individual identification by any of Authority control identifier. Also, the language of this BLP isn't encyclopedic. Creator has no other contributions except the subject seems trying to promote personal biography herself. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has received substantial news coverage as a result of the reaction to her novel - see this from the BBC, of which Google translate gives a very rough idea. PamD 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: How can one BBC report of getting threatened be considered "substantial coverage"? In fact that's what I meant when I mentioned WP:EVENT. If you can understand the report from Google translate, it is not a review of her book. That is simply a news about a writer being threatened because of a book she wrote, what is the say of the writer about this threat, and what are the BBC readers think about threatening writers in Bangladesh. Additionally, that report also states, it happens during every Ekushey Book Fair in Bangladesh every year. So do we have to make all of them notable because of that event? That's exactly why she is not notable per WP:EVENT. — T. 15:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and most of the news coverage this person got is not for her literary works. The language of the article is not encyclopedic and lacks quality sources. Moreover, the main contributor of this article does not have any other contribution on Wikipedia and looks like it's another case of self-promotion. Ali Haidar Khan Tonmoy (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, it's self promotion article. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article so that it is shorter, has a neutral point of view and is more encyclopaedic in tone, and also to show the reason for notability in the introduction. (The quality of the article is not a reason to delete it.) It does not matter who the first author of the article was - it has been revised by several editors since then. The subject of the article meets WP:BASIC because she has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The AfD nominator appears not to fully understand the WP:BASIC criteria. No, the subject of the article has not received coverage as a journalist or reporter - she received coverage for the themes of her first two novels and the threats made against her because of them. Primary sources are not required - secondary sources are required, and have been provided. It is irrelevant whether the coverage is in digital sources or print sources - most print and broadcast news media also have an online presence these days. Nor does it matter what the first online search results are - what matters is the existence of coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and this has been demonstrated. I have added another today, from 2018, which indicates that her notability deriving from publication of these novels is ongoing. If other authors of works released at the annual book fair are also controversial, they may also be notable if there is also significant coverage of them - whether there are Wikipedia articles about them yet or not is irrelevant to establishing the notability of the subject of this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen:, I’m not sure if you can identity reliable sources. Yes, you have added a reference to the article to ensure notability. It’s a news website which isn’t a reliable news site. Bangladesh has hundreds of online news portal like this to spread fake news, trivial facts, etc. According to Wikipedia’s policy this kind of websites cannot be considered as reliable sources and therefore unacceptable. It’s absolutely not what you say, “reliable, intellectually independent” according to Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources. It seems like you are googling and putting any website link you find without verifying the reliability of the source, and you claim that as ‘significant’. No, it doesn’t work that way. Additionally in the reference links, it say what the writer said during interviews, she said, she brought suffering of tribal women to light. Not an Independence person. I can say anything I like about a book I wrote, right? So, it's not said by notable neutral sources. Mark my point. It's said by the writer. It cannot be considered as a review of her book.

WP:BIO says in a nutshell, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” The source you just added isn’t at all reliable, and the overall coverage isn’t significant. One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable. I am not sure if you read what I wrote in reply to PamD. someone can’t be considered notable if they got coverage just of one event! It’s just one single case of getting threatened. There I mention about the event she was threatened. I translated the BBC article (this is a reliable news site). It clearly said this kind of threatening happens every year during this book fair when some groups don’t like some books. She can’t be notable because of this.

I would like to see people defend this article based on reliable sources. There are absolutely no neutral, notable critical review for any of her books. Please do present if you have any! You don’t have to trust me, see what you can find here: search result of dumurer phul and search result for Shomokameeta. Or get some from anywhere you like and present here in this discussion.

Tell me where I am wrong. I would request you to defend article with references, not just by saying things like, “got significant coverage” and so on. You must provide reliable sources. — T. 23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The subject is notable. There is a reference, that is a review of her book in The Independent, a national daily. There are refernces to Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Bangla Tribune, and Manab Zamin. All national newspapers which are published. There is a reference to bdnews24.com, a prominent news website in Bangladesh. All reliable and notable sources with their own long standing Wikipedia articles. I am confused by nominator talking about neutral source, what do they mean? Her books have been reviewed on notable national news organizatios and she herself has been talked about. This is not one event, but a young author whose works, yes more than one, have received critical coverage. There are more than 5 reliable sources referenced in the article, I do not understand what the nominator is asking for. Some people create one page, someone they heard about, used google to find out more, and learned that person does not have an account. They proceed to create that article and move on, not uncommon. There is no evidence to suggest COI for creater except pure conjecture. Is she notable? Yes. Does the article have reliable sources to prove that? Yes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: The Independent has a review. Okay, you mentioned Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Bangla Tribune, and Manab Zamin. Yes, they are all notable national dailies. But what do they say? You said review of her book. It's wrong. Only The Independent has a review. Others news sources have only news of her being threatened or her publishing some books which are available in book fair. Now how do you all say, one or two references as substantial coverage? It's not what the policy says substantial! — T. 08:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the references in the article say on Rokeya Lita (current version as of November 29, 2018)
For better understanding of the community. Please do compare. Thank you.

Source: Kalerkantho Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
Not a review of her book. It’s a small news consisting an interview of her saying what she thinks about her novel ‘’Shamokameeta’’. The report is full of her quotations of her saying. Not considered independent as she talked about her own books.
Source: Muhurter Khabor Type: Online news portal, not a notable news portal
Same news as published in reference 1. Full of her saying her own book. Even the wording of the report is same as the first reference. Probably a copy-paste report. Very common in news portal like this.
Source: The Independent Type: Notable English daily from Bangladesh
The only reference in the article that is a review of her book. The only link we found as a review on her book when we google to find reviews.
Source: Manab Zamin Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
News of her book being published. What the writer says about her book, the writer’s background, plan about future writing, etc. Also news of her being threatened for the book she wrote.
Source: Parbattanews Type: Blog site (says news on the name but it’s not registered, not details, not considered acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy)
The post is not directly about Rokeya Lita or her book. It’s about suffering of tribal women in Bangladesh. In the post, the writer mentioned Rokeya Lita mentioned this on her book. That’s all what the reference is all about. Two sentences.
Source: Amader Shomoy Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
Short news of Rokeya Lita filing a general diary in the police station because she was threatened to write the book. No review of her work at all.
Source: BBC Bangla Type: Notable International daily
Same news as above. No review of her work at all. The report focuses actually on threatening writers in Bangladesh. Almost half of the report is about what the BBC readers say about threatening writers in Bangladesh. Use google translate if you think I'm lying.
Source: cht-terrorism.blogspot.com Type: Blog site
Unacceptable reference as it is a blog. It contains details about her threat though.
Source: Kalerkantho Type: Notable Bangladeshi daily
Interview of her talking about her second book. No review from a third party.
Source: Bangla Tribune Type: Notable Bangladeshi news website
News of her second book being available in the book fair. No review. Mentions the plot of the second novel and quotation of Rokeya Lita about the book. No further details.
Source: Bdnews24.com Type: Notable Bangladeshi news website
It’s a report written by Rokeya Lita herself! I don’t have to say anything about the report as it’s not acceptable by any chance.
Source: Worldcat Type: Online book listing site
No review. Simply listing the book with ISBN.
Source: Worldcat Type: Online book listing site
No review. Simply listing the book with ISBN.

Now in all of 13 references, only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book. Two are blogs, two are book listing websites, one is report written by the writer. Rest are small news of her threat or her publishing some books, or interview about what she says/thinks about her own book. They are not at all independent nor reliable. According to Wikipedia's policy.

If you think the threat makes her notable. Then Wikipedia policy says, one event doesn't make anyone notable. And see the BBC news here (it's also one of the references in her article, only from the international media). Look at the 3rd paragraph. It clearly says, the threatening happens in every Ekushey Book Fair every year (see translation by Google if you don't know Bangla). If you know Wikipedia policy you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats! So she can't be considered notable because of one single threat.

This is the full forensic of the references we have in the article. It clearly says, there are no reason for this article to be notable for Wikipedia. Guys, give reliable sources. You have one (kind of, because The Independent isn't high profile like The Daily Star from Bangladesh) but that's not at all substantial and that isn't enough for the article to keep.

Thanks for reading. — T. 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. self-promotion. Alieninfluenza (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user has no contribution to wikipedia aside from this one vote and not a newly created acount. Rather suspicious indeed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to admin! this user is make one vote with new account. I think is be Someone's Sock. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User T. has already showed detailed information regarding the gap of references in this article, which clearly indicates, still there is lack of enough references to show her notability in encyclopedia. The history of this page creation both in Bengali and English Wikipedia also raises question on this article being a self promoted page (WP:PROMO). S Shamima Nasrin (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, Like I said in Bangla Wikipedia this article fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR for a number of reasons and also per Tanvir. One can argue that there are lot of sources to establish notability. But did they really cover in depth about the subject independently? No. Most of those sources are self interviews, news about the release of her book and some trivial coverage. BBC Bangla is a notable source but it's not independent of the subject. She worked for the organization and still writes on behalf of the organization.~ Nahid ^Talk 10:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. As it said in previous AFD, and explain by User:Wikitanvir. All website are not reliable at all.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say "One threat because of a book someone wrote doesn’t make anyone notable"; "only one (reference number 3) can be considered as a review of her book .... Rest are small news of her threat". Where is the policy that receiving threats of rape (in this case because of the theme of her books) does not make someone notable? I made no claim at all that she meets WP:AUTHOR. The BBC reference that you refer to says, in translation, "there is a growing mentality of threatening it .... The authors say that, because of this, their concerns are increasing." Then you say, "you can't say that makes all of them notable as all of them receive threats!" If there is significant, reliable, independent coverage of each of those authors being threatened because of what they write, then yes, they could all be notable. At the very least, threats to authors in Bangladesh would be a notable topic. The fact that it happens to many authors does not make it non-notable! Checking to see what else Wikipedia has on this topic, I see that there is a List of journalists killed in Bangladesh, "about journalists killed in Bangladesh while reporting or on account of their journalism." I also find that another novelist, Taslima Nasrin, has lived in exile from Bangladesh and West Bengal after receiving death threats because of a novel published in 1993. That novel "attracted wide attention because of its controversial subject matter". Clearly, threats to writers in Bangladesh are not trivial. To return to your list above, I see that you state that references 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are reliable Bangladeshi news sources; they are independent of each other and of her; and they report news about her books and/or about the threats to her. (That is not including the reliable news sources which published interviews with her.) How is that not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs) 18:38, November 29, 2018 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: Unfortunately, the policy doesn't have a notability guideline for rape threat receivers, but it says someone isn't notable if they got coverage for one event only. See WP:ONEEVENT. It says in this case, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Therefore, she might be a part of some list where people got threatened because of their published works. A separate article of her own is quite unnecessary. All those people who got threatened can't be notable if they got coverage only for their threat. I agree with you that threat to authors in Bangladesh is a notable topic and we could list Rokeya Lita if we could have an article on that (I encourage you to create one), but separate articles for them aren't notable nor necessary. You mentioned a list of Bangladeshi journalist who got killed during their duties. Now see they might be notable to be in that list but all of them are not notable for separate articles of their own. Many journalists in that article do not have their own article in Wikipedia. That's why they are there. Some also have their own articles because they aren't only notable for getting killed, also for their works. Taslima Nasrin is totally irrelevant here. She is notable for her work, she published many books, got threatened for a few so she lives in exile now. But she is not notable for threats only. She also received international awards. In our case, Rokeya Lita has none of these.

Reference 4 and 10 says she published a book. That's all. It's a notice type news! No review! For all the times you were saying you got "significant reviews/coverage" where are these reviews may I ask? It's just short news that the books have been published and available in the fair. During Ekushey Book Fair Bangladeshi newspapers publish hundreds of similar news saying someone's some book have released and available in some stall. It's not at all significant. Remember she works freelance for some newspapers in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh it's very common to have (even trivial) news about their correspondents' work/family even if they are not significant. It's very difficult for people outside of Bangladesh to understand how trivial that could be (example title: "grandfather of our district correspondent died yesterday", etc)

You consider reference 7, 10, 11 as independent? She writes columns for all of this newspapers. See here Bangla Tribune, BBC Bangla, bdnews24.com. It's their writer. So, they can't be independent! The persons who wrote the reports are her colleagues! How could you say "they are independent of each other"? Please think! — T. 22:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per @RebeccaGreen:. Some editor are make delete vote for personal case and use sock. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if a comment from an IP without any logical explanations have weight of any kind. However, I would politely request the valued unknown contributor to consider my logical replies to respected RebeccaGreen to change his/her thought. And please create an account, we don't bite. :) — T. 11:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references and sources provided to prove the notability of the article doesn't say why this user is notable. Among the 13 references, few are blogs and non-notable news portals. And the rest are actually interviews of her, which is actually self quotation. Now I'm not listing them again and again as it's already been sorted out above. So among the references nothing states the notability of this person. Some interviews of her or reviews of her book doesn't state the notability of this BLP. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 11:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Square, Ballarat

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Not able to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Longhair\^talk 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom, fails WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a run of the mill shopping centre. Nothing notable about it. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of very ordinary very routine commercial references / mentions but nothing at all to indicate notability. Just another one of thousands of typical shopping centres. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of the type of coverage in the article and through internet searches that is needed to show notability for similar articles shows that this mall fails to pass the guidelines for inclusion. JC7V (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javaid Anwar

(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. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Now there thousands of poets.Not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crealogix

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. While the company exists, this seems to be essentially a paragraph of history based on various press-releases occasionally through churnalism services. Nothing indicates this is anything but a glorified WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES with a list of said press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The routine announcements and Q&A-format piece by a company executive are not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are finding more announcements of acquisitions and divestments and some speculation in early 2018 but I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up the article, removing some marketing-speak and improving readability. This reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and if another analyst report can be found (or another reference that meets NCORP] then I will change to !vote Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I am not sure if such reports are not WP:ROUTINE. It's like saying that an investment fund prospect (brochure) is a reliable source for notability about that fund. Such reports may not be independent, and/or can be very routine in some fields. Edison Investment Research, like many companies in Securities research, produces such reports on a routine basis. I'd be very hesitant to say that are sufficient for notability (through I'd consider them reliable for information in general). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Analyst reports aren't routine. Anyway WP:LISTED says they are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edico Genome

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

Non-notable company page suspected to have been created by a paid editor. No significant history. The company sold to another corporation for a mere $100 million. Fails WP:10YT. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass notability, seems like it's self-promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future self

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

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

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

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

This is more than covered at Self-concept and anything not can probably be merged however this is a massive essay and what I'd expect to see handed into a teacher and not a Wikipedia article. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reverted this back to the redirect to Self-concept as an unneeded fork. The original author reverted again but later moved it to draft before moving it back to main space less than 3 hours later with no good explanation. It is a wholesale duplication of Self concept. Self concept has benefited from the contributions of a wide range of editors. This is significantly less well written, attempts to cover the same ground, but reads like a college level thesis. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contemporary psychological research on the future self is not covered on the self-concept page. The psychological theories and applications are distinct and the psychological literatures for the two topics have essentially no overlap. The sources of the future self article are entirely from top peer-reviewed psychology and consumer behavior journals. I am a new contributor and will edit the article to have encyclopedic style. I wrote on both your talk pages explaining why I reverted your redirects. I am greatly looking forward to improving this article and appreciate your input. JSRpsych (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — JSRpsych (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-concept because both terms are notable. desmay (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and the nomination provides no reason to delete. The self-concept article is broader in that it covers the past, present and future. That article is quite large and so it is reasonable to cover one of these aspects in detail per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OP's well-reasoned rationale. Maybe merge some of the contents if they're not redundant and are properly sourced/written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge while this article is quite large, its length is partially due to its constant repetition of the same claims over and over again, as well as its detailed presentation of multiple different studies that all have very similar results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading through both Future self and Self-concept, the former seems like a valid independent subject. Merging the two would result in issues with undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the claim that Self-concept covers this subject is utter fantasy. The body of the article does not have the word future anywhere in it. Alright, the lead has four mentions of future self in it, so presumably the article is supposed to include this subject, but it actually doesn't. Having said that, Future self is horribly essay-like and needs a lot of cleanup. Possibly there should only be one article, but a lot of work and thought needs to go into that first. It won't be resolved at this AfD. SpinningSpark 00:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon A. Landry

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (being a conference First Team does not meet it), no sources suggesting that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this video game meets notability requirements. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toast Time

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

AfC accepted during IRC discussion of whether the sources indicated notability or not.

I'm (obviously) of the opinion that they don't, and here's why:

148Apps and Big Red Barrel are both non-notable non-selective app review sites with no apparent editorial oversight or particular journalistic cachet. 148 uses affiliate links in their reviews, so they have an incentive to review anything and everything utterly unselectively. Big Red Barrel doesn't even have an About page. In my opinion a review on these sites doesn't contribute anything to notability.

TouchArcade looks like it has an article, but it's a redirect to MacRumors, of which it is a sister site. MacRumors is a rumor/news aggregator for stories about Mac. By its nature it's unreliable. I can't see its sister site having any better editorial standards.
- Side note: TouchArcade is listed at WP:VG/RS, but in my opinion that's absurd. There's no about page, no editorial policy or information about their contributors, and clicking Product Reviews leads you to https://toucharcade.com/category/amazon-item-of-the-day/. If that isn't flagrant advertorial content I don't know what is.

Pocket Gamer is the only one that I would consider even marginally reliable. At least they have a content policy and an editorial team.

On to the awards! As we all know, not all awards are created equal. Winning a notable award (ie, an award that sources cover independently as a point of interest) indicates notability, and usually generates it when third-party sources cover the win. But if an award itself isn't notable, and nobody covers someone winning it, it can hardly be said to be an indicator of notability.

So what do we have? We have the company Force of Habit winning a TIGA business award for "Best new IP" in 2013, and we have the game winning best art design at the 2014 Intel Level Up Game Designer Contest. Neither award is notable in and of itself, nobody covered the wins in independent media, and the TIGA award is for the company, not the game.

In summation: reviews from unreliable/non-notable websites and two non-notable awards. One review from Pocket Gamer isn't enough to hang the article on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this review at DigitalSpy but personally I still think two reviews, one of them on a subject-specific site, isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My accept of this article was based primarily on the outcome of this AfD I submitted back in 2016, which had substantially less sourcing and yet still ended in a keep, since most agreed that reviews were enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm genuinely curious to see what the opinions of others are, since apps are such a nebulous area in terms of sourcing.
As an aside, I'm really confused behind some of the decisions on WP:VG/S. TouchArcade is listed after several discussions despite having an entire section dedicated to Amazon affiliate farming, and yet Android Police is blocked since it doesn't have an "identifiable editorial team with experience in gaming"? Huh? Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another addendum: Tapscape was flagged as unreliable due to their usage of sponsored content and advertising disguised as reviews, which adds further to my head scratching over TouchArcade. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ♠PMC♠,

An addendum r.e. reviews/coverage: There is also a review from Hardcore Gamer which is in the WP:VG/S, and coverage in UK newspaper/website The Guardian. I will look for additional sources shortly so please do not delete this page yet. Ashgwin (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Big Red Barrel & 148Apps reviews can be removed if they are not notable. The awards can also be removed if they are not notable. Ashgwin (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Arcade is on the list because of this discussion. One might consider reviewing the links provided in the far right column to establish why items are on the list in the future. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Izno, I did, actually. I'm of the opinion that that discussion is worth revisiting. The Guardian's list of websites mentions Pocket Gamer, not TouchArcade (nobody checked?) and AdAge refers to it in the context of how best to position one's own app to get reviews (not a great indicator of journalistic reliability). It does seem to have been referred to by other sources, but it's interesting to note (and I believe Nathan2055 did more thorough checking on this) that those kinds of referrals from reliable sites drop off a cliff after about 2015. I'm wondering if the site took a dive in quality between then and now, because what I see now does not inspire confidence in me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like the "Product Reviews" page on Touch Arcade is the sponsored content section, and so (rightly so) is separate from the rest of the content e.g. news/reviews/hot games/etc. Also see this page https://toucharcade.com/amazon which makes it more explicit. I think this was introduced after Apple removed their affiliate referral program: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/01/apple-is-ending-its-app-store-affiliate-program-in-october/ Ashgwin (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant: https://toucharcade.com/2018/08/01/apple-kills-the-app-store-affiliate-program-and-i-have-no-idea-what-we-are-going-to-do/ czar 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was leaning towards weak delete, but a review by mainstream news outlet The Guardian, together with VG/RS Hardcore Gamer and Pocket Gamer definitely meets WP:GNG, in my opinion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References are padded, article could use some work, but I think there's enough real coverage to meet GNG. Dgpop (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- I made a pass through this, removing the questionable references and some vagueness, and narrowed the game down to a single genre. Dgpop (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, because no one pointed this out yet, the Toast Time page was created by one of the developers. They declared a COI, but they still picked the reviewer blurbs to use. Dgpop (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Nathan2055: I will just say that Android Police should be moved to Inconclusive Discussions because this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_12#Android_Police certainly was not a consensus in any sense. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be coverage per Touch Arcade (until there is a discussion which overrules the former decision, this stays as reliable for now), Hardcore Gamer, Pocket Gamer and supported by The Guardian and Digital Spy. Even if we discount 148Apps (but it is situational one). Passes WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it'll affect this AfD, but started a discussion on TouchArcade: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#TouchArcade czar 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to fulfill WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 08:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nairanjana Dasgupta

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

Is an accomplished statistician, but not exactly "Notable". Her main achievements are: 1) Being named a Fellow of American Statistical Association. 2) Named "Boeing" Distinguished Professor of Math and Science at WSU. Daiyusha (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as article creator on the basis that there is no evidence that the nominator has any familiarity with our academic notability criteria. Best to just withdraw this nomination before wasting more editor time with it. Criterion #C1: multiple papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar, check. Criterion #C3: fellow of a major scholarly society for which this is a significant honor, check. Criterion #C5: named and distinguished professorship at a major university, double check. Only one would be enough. In fact the nomination statement describes two out of three of these but without any apparent recognition of their significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool handshakes

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

Article is about a specific use of handshakes, but there's no reason to have it be a separate article from handshake. I could see some content being merged to there, but it's not really well-written enough to be worth it. Sdkb (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No idea why this even exists, it looks like the work of a new editor who couldn't think of a good article topic. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and there's nothing here worth merging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nathan. Remagoxer (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nathan. Also, this would be impossible to write WP:NPOV as well, as there are no rules on what makes a handshake cool. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:LakesideMiners is clearly unfamiliar with Stewart's test. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Argento Surfer, is that sarcasm? LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is!. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2018 (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 Professional boxing#Scoring. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 Point System

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

Already covered under Professional boxing#scoring so this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that isn't needed. CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Professional_boxing#Scoring - Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a lot of it seems to be about scoring/judging in general rather than this particular form of scoring Abcmaxx (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2018 (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. Per G11. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LetsBab

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

New business that fails WP:GNG, as it has not yet attracted attention in secondary sources. Sdkb (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one could likely be speedied. There is nothing out there as far as reliable coverage in secondary sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't in anyway pass GNG and WP:RS. @CNMall41: i concur it could have been speedy delete, no need bringing it here. ShunDream (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Went ahead and marked for G11, nothing here worth salvaging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardano (platform)

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionably notable blockchain platform/cryptocurrency. For the past few weeks some editors have been adding material, and other have been removing it due to poor sourcing. It seems probable that no reliable sources exist, in which the topic does not pass the general notability guidelines. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, all the sources I can find are just price info from various cryptocurrency tracking websites. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - it's an interesting project with some good coverage, but only in the crypto blogs - nothing in RSes for notability. A quintessential WP:TOOSOON at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should remain for several reasons. My main reason is that when I looked-up this topic I couldn't find a page offering rudimentary infos. Wikipedia is not printed on paper. Even as a Stub article should remain, due to the circumstance that Cardano is listed consistently in the Top10 at https://coinmarketcap.com That primarily scene sources write about the topic should not be used as an exclusion argument. Many of the articles on the topic appear to be listed at Google News, which is at least an indicator for some sort of establishment. prokaryotes (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a policy-based reason. Do you have RSes, and not just crypto blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I last edited the page it looked like this, contained references to Forbes or Bloomberg, among a couple of other scene posts. prokaryotes (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Forbes is a contributor blog. I added the Bloomberg mention (that the price peaked at the top of the crypto bubble) - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - reliability and notability-conferring of the Daily Dot is questionable, and this piece in particular seriously reads like an advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added "not a ballot" - the previous AFD was trashed by a flood of SPAs - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best I can find is several mentions in Bloomberg articles. Example: Up to Two-Thirds of Bitcoin Transactions Have No Economic Value which only says "At one point, 98 percent of transactions on the digital token Cardano had no economic value, Coinmetrics said." No good for notability. @Prokaryotes: As I'm writing this Cardano is no longer in the top 10. It's about 5 million less than Monero and because of Bitcoin Cash forking there is now "Bitcoin SV" at #9 which puts Cardano at #11. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2018 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sdkb (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kent

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

Non-notable person from the distant past who isn't mentioned anywhere on the internet that I can tell except for an Oxford Dictionary article where she is used as an example of a category. Sdkb (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A quick google search shows 6 books with information about Marion Kent, not including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. References and additional information can easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RebeccaGreen:There are books that reference people named Marion Kent, but all of those seem to be referring to people in the 1800s or 1900s. This article is about someone who died in 1500. On some further Googling, she does seem to be mentioned in three books, but I'm not sure whether any of them would count for GNG as a non-trivial mention. - Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I googled "Marion Kent" 1478. All the references I found were definitely about the subject of the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A DNB entry has always been seen as an indicator that an individual has sufficient notability for Wikipedia per WP:ANYBIO #3. Our inclusion criteria are far wider than theirs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #3, as argued above, and the availability of additional sourcing. Multiple scholarly publications comment upon Marion Kent as an unusual case for her society and time period. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a person from the distant past who isn't mentioned on the internet seems a particularly strong reason for having an article. Anyway, the claim is wrong. ODNB (on the internet) has a lot more information and I found a book on Google books with a paragraph about her and several other books with mentions. (Try "marion kent" "york" -"new york" in Google books). Passes GNG anyway. Thincat (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2018 (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 and redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Sandström

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic survivor. –dlthewave ☎ 03:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough reliable source coverage of this individual to demonstrate notability - several glancing mentions, but not any significant coverage. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can probably be made into a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:9482:3F05:C247:7F70 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Doesn't look to meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Encyclopedia Titanica, in my eyes, shouldn't count towards notability as their inclusion bar (for Titanic related content) is well below our own. Other than Titanica (reffed in article), I don't see INDEPTH coverage elsewhere - I do see her testimony mentioned here and there. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Alfred Gaskell

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic victim. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dont see anything in the article that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI. Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Nourney

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic survivor. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that shows he is noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Rather wide coverage of how he upgraded his second class ticket to first and, by impersonated a baron (Baron von Drachstedt).[23][24][25][26][27][28] [29] Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Can't see anything beyond very brief coverage of the same couple facts. Seems like a great use of the article to cover such a story without necessitating a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the books mentioned above, he got some coverage in the US for his intention to sue for the loss of his clothes! One article, in The Tennessean, seems to see through him, and rather makes fun of him - it's called 'A Sartorial Tragedy', and starts "One of the real sufferers by the Titanic tragedy .... Alfred is mourning with a grief that refuses to be assuaged the loss of his entire wardrobe". It gives the amount he claimed it was worth, and lists the items (ending "and ever so much more"!)[30]. Another, in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, takes him rather more seriously, states that he was "an aeroplanist and driver of racing automobiles", and lists the whole inventory of his clothes, all with individual prices! [31] He sounds like a remarkable con artist, and it's hard to believe that he did no more in Germany than become a salesman, car racer, member of a tennis club, marry and have two children. I would say keep, and add the info about his plan to sue for loss of his clothes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because there's enough material to make the article interesting and I can imagine it being used in research. Deb (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2018 (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 and redirect to Noël Leslie, Countess of Rothes#Titanic disaster. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Cherry

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic survivor. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont see anything in the article that makes her noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Crook1 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for deletion following the nomination are a bit weak. Relisting as per WP:NEXIST and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noël Leslie, Countess of Rothes#Titanic disaster. Cherry has some coverage (including in contemporary NEWSORG reporting - e.g. [32][33], as well as several books) - however almost all of it jointly with Leslie (they were both travelling together on the Titanic, and their account of the sinking is a joint one). Leslie's article already contains a fuller account of the events she witnessed with Cherry (otherwise I would be advocating a merge).Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Beattie

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a victim of the Titanic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI. Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's pretty clear from the sources themselves that this person does not have individual notability. If we have a longer article collecting Titanic passengers, some of this could live there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 26 November 2018 (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSure

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

notices, but not substantial sources, so there is not adequate evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; corporate spam on a nn company. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AUDEH OverDose

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited and doesn't meet general notability. ShunDream (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also source 6 seems to be a site for downloading music and looks illegal. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 19:34, 21 November 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Recordings

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Page's only references are self-published sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional - quoting exactly from the lede "WE’RE AN ARTIST MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A RECORD LABEL, A BOOKING AGENCY, A CONCERT PRODUCER AND A PROMOTION & PUBLICITY AGENCY." yuck Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so promotional. This looks like it could be tagged with WP:G11.LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably created by an employee of the studio and it's just one puff piece. Couldn't find any reliable sources from GNEWS and i believe this subject meets WP:G11. ShunDream (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources and as noted above , promotionalistism of it make this a delete for me. JC7V (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inetscreen

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article has been cited with reliable sources including The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama, Deshabhimani etc. 2405:204:5505:B9E:C183:8D:226A:3DA1 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this falls under advertising. Is non-notable, needs to be nuked! Skirts89 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG as per nom Spiderone 19:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no puffery involved. The entire article is factual and has been cited with reliable sourcesincluding The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama, Deshabhimani. etc2406:7400:58:FC35:D5A8:80AB:A0D7:CB71 (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The discussion hasn't gone forward since 22 November 2018. I think it is time to close the deletion entry. As mentioned above, the entire article is cited with reliable sources including major publications.103.5.135.9 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's get some more opinions in here. The article is clearly promotional and mentions in major publications do not guarantee notability. Skirts89 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a case of WP:TOOSOON as the service has not come out yet. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2018 (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. But convert to article about the company Outfittery. Sandstein 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bösch

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

non notable businessperson. Current sources are not RS and other sources not found to demonstrate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or convert to article about the company Outfittery (currently a redirect to her). Forbes and Handelsblatt Global seem good enough RS. Co-founder Anna Alex gets a fair bit of coverage eg here, so an article on the company might be better. PamD 12:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and convert to Outfittery. There's almost nothing to verify any of Ms. Bösch's biographical details (I'm not sure if the Forbes profile is self-written). Conversely, there are at least two reliable sources that describe the company in detail - it makes more sense to have an article on the company rather than the person. Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)m[reply]
Comment a redirect and conversion of the article to be about Outfittery makes some sense to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete as noted above the company is sizable. Raising 50m is impressive. Victuallers (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to an article on the company Outfittery. W C M_email 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and convert to article about the company per Richard3120. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2018 (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 Blockchain#Uses. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain game

(Find video game sources: "Blockchain game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Vague rambling around a neologism rather than a common term found in RSes. This has never been a coherent article. It's also a spam magnet - this is the version culled of the worst spammy bad cites. (Previous version here.) Of the remaining four references, one is a marketing blog for a consultant firm, and two of the RS sources don't even mention the supposed genre. Declined PROD asserting notability of the neologism, but without providing evidence. David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the nomination rational focuses too much on the term "blockchain game" rather than the topic. Even if the term is a neologism that fails to appear in RSes, the concept of "Blockchains in gaming" could still be notable (I would be open to moving the page, but do not feel strongly either way). That said, I agree that the CNBC and Fortune sources are irrelevant. Both provide in-depth coverage of CryptoKitties, but more from the perspective of collectibles -- neither article discusses blockchain games generally. We certainly have not demonstrated notability. I'm having trouble finding nontrivial coverage in RSes, but would be open to reconsidering my position if someone else found some. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on blockchain games other than Cryptokitties. I'd suggest merging it into Cryptokitties, but if there isn't anything in blockchain games other than Cryptokitties, it would just weigh down that article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, purge and rename to blockchain in video games (or whatever title is appropriate). Using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it doesn't look like there's such a thing as a "blockchain game" as genre, like adventure game but blockchain technology is used in games.
- GamesIndustry.biz: "Ubisoft, Fig, other companies form Blockchain Gaming Alliance" and "EON Foundation raises $5 million for blockchain game publishing"
- Gamasutra: "Ubisoft details its blockchain-powered game HashCraft"
- GameZebo: "Age of Rust is a forthcoming Enjin Coin-backed blockchain game with its own rental market"
- US Gamer: "Blockchain and You: What Does Blockchain Even Do for Video Games?" soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can we get a second opinion to whether these sources are reliable? I am not familiar with gaming news. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are part of WP:VG/RS -- consensus vetted to be reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:NUKE per WP:NEOLOGISM. This is not a standard term sources use, so the article title should not pretend to be. Something like aforementioned blockchains in video games would be appropriately neutral. It seems there are sources that discuss the concept sufficiently to pass the WP:GNG mark with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. My only concern is that such an article does not become an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of drive-by game mentions with no context. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be an ill-cited example farm and spam magnet within minutes - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And all that sound like "delete this article, start a different article". Which, fine - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdrew my !vote for deletion per the sources found by User:Soetermans. These articles do provide significant coverage, and the folks at WP:VG vouched for their reliability. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several blockchain games exist in the market. And we can google for it. Joeccho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeccho:, WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument. Also, your first edit is a keep vote. That's never a good sign. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans:, Previously I participate in another language of wikipedia, and mostly participate anonymously. Joeccho (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like consensus is verging towards deleting or re-purposing the article, but it's not clear yet. Hopefully another week can fix this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above, is a neologism and the page currently has nothing on what a "blockchain game" is. There may be uses of blockchain in games, but the content in the article right now is just about Cryptokitties. Either merge the content with Cryptokitties, or make a an article ABOUT blockchain in games, BUT blockchain games are not a thing. Application of blockchain IS a thing though. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 09:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, purge and rename to blockchain in video games (or whatever title is appropriate). The technology itself are notable, but the name itself are not. Joeccho (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that different to "delete" and creating a new article? - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Blockchain#Uses, but create a section called Video games so it stands out in the table of contents. As more info is added, it can be forked out to a standalone article. Right now there's just not enough - so WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:08, 29 November 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Stanley's House

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just mentioned in passing in WP:VG/RS'es, no in-depth coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised this was not deleted completely with the copyvio G12 issues. Nothing remarable here to justify a page. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete All the contents are from the designer of this game, 雪夜公爵. They are believable. zhangshiqq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note zhangshiqq (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article.

If the content is from the developer, that would mean it hasn't got any independent, reliable third-party coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any coverage that I could find which would show this is notable enough for inclusion. JC7V (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear failure of GNG. Frankly, this could probably be PROD'ed. Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:SNOW. Lordtobi (✉) 20:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:44, 28 November 2018 (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. But likely delete next time around if not improved. Sandstein 19:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annalaura di Luggo

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

This article is terribly sourced: most of the references link to videos or articles in Italian, which even then do not appear to prominently mention the subject. Most of the content is promotionalism/puffery and there is no indication that subject meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no evidence that her works are "in the collections of galleries in Miami, New York, Paris, Sao Paulo, Istanbul, Monte Carlo, etc" - in fact, her bio on other sites states that she has "exhibited" in those places. The "galleries" in Italy which hold her work are in a school for the blind and a prison - admirable, but not meeting WP:CREATIVE, "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Reference 14 is actually a review of her work Blind Vision in ArtPulse, but it seems to be the only review, rather than press release, etc. So she hasn't "won significant critical attention", either. (And just as an aside, the article which Blind Vision is linked to here is about a song, not about her film!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, you can delete those claims from the article if you think they are not true. You can also tag such claims with templates like^{[failed verification]} and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is the kind of promotional garage that we should avoid. However I see some articles in the sources that look like in-depth coverage. Can an Italian speaker give us a better idea of their quality? I deleted numerous passages of puffery, for example "She has hosted on her boat several Hollywood stars." (sourced by Youtube) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article worth keeping on en-Wiki if none of the sources are comprehensible to the average reader? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. If sources are available in other languages, they are as good as sources in English. They just need to exist. That's the policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep and Significantly Rework. The tone itself is very promotional, but there are quite enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am leaning towards agreeing with Arthistorian1977. I strongly agree that we should not make decisions on articles where the sources are in another language that none of the AfD contributors speak. In cases such as this, we need guidance from someone who speaks the language. Google translate only goes so far.Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed what puffery I could see and any obviously not RS or primary references. From what remains, I am not sure this artist is notable, and am skeptical of the value of the sources. Not certain enough as of yet as to whether I would keep this or delete it. Isingness (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source notes. I looked at a smatering fo the sources in Google translate.

ref #1 one of many articles about her Blind Vision project. Short, not in-depth, looks like a lot of name dropping.
ref #3: a very short event announcement in a magazine, with what sounds like promo copy about the project.
ref #5: a fairly long event announcement for a solo show in a university magazine that looks to be RS.
ref #7 can be read in English here: http://artpulsemagazine.com/blind-vision
ref #8: Didici magazine. Reads like a press release, although it has an author.
ref #9: Ioarte, whose site description translates to "promotion of emerging artists"> Article has some good things but finished with her CV, so likely not RS.
ref #10 Dodici magazine again. A minor review of the blind vision project.

From the above I will say very weak keep and agree with ArtHistorian that it needs a significant rework. There's decent but not particularly in-depth coverage, mostly about the Blind Vision project. I'm almost neutral on this, it could also be deleted without a problem.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless Screen Entertainment

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ENIMATION Little Elephant - International Children and Youth Film Festival

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

No RS in the article and none found in a before search all sources are primary. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kratka Forma – The International Festival of Short Films

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

Non notable defunct film festival. fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette and Karl

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

It’s been 8 years and still this article has no citations, and nothing comes up in searches for news or web about this programme. If it still exists it does not appear to be notable, although the participants are. Mramoeba (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2018 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of scholars of African music

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

Unreferenced list with no set criteria. This article was DePRODed by an editor who has a history of DePRODing articles without any rationale. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-recognized academic subdiscipline (see the African Music Section of the Society for Ethnomusicology) but trim only to bluelinked articles per the usual conventions for open-ended Wikipedia lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add also: trim only to bluelinked articles that clearly state and source scholarly work in African ethnomusicology. The "no set criteria" claim is a red herring, not a valid reason for deletion, as it's easy enough to create appropriate criteria. The past history of the unprodder is also not a valid deletion rationale. So as an AfD with no valid deletion rationale stated, this could potentially be a speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, no set criteria, and probably original research. List consists of mostly non notable BLPs. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaned up to only bluelinked entries, it's fine. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:LISTN; contains blue-linked entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as list has clear inclusion criteria, only contains blue-linked entries, and has suitable references supporting its status as a notable set or group in its own right. Meets WP:LISTN. Thanks to David Eppstein for putting in the work to improve the article. Bakazaka (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN; see Representing African Music, for example. As for the proposed deletion, this was improperly placed on a new good faith article and the contributor has not edited since. This action was contrary to WP:PROD, "for uncontroversial deletion ...must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and WP:BITE "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2018 (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 Pushed back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uplands College

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

Notability is very low, no real citations , the Uplands Preparatory School has nothing to do with Uplands college. I nominate it for deletion. Barry Ne (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Secondary school + existence = notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I totally disagree with the keep vote above; see WP:NSCHOOL; this article clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 90th anniversary for the prep school has been covered by papers. found this Lowvelder newspaper article: [34] [35] White River Post (local newspaper) and Lowverlder also features regular articles and announcements for the school. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about the high school and not the prep school. In any case primary school are not notable Barry Ne (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Ne, it covers pre-K to grade 12, so the 90 year history applies. See [41] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, Good day. I respectfully accept the fact that, the school since 1997 catered for the high school phase as well. However it is two separate divisions. (Actually I belief it is two separate schools (2 Head Masters). The article itself says it caters for grade 8-12. If one however look at the article itself, no sources apart from the schools website appears as a source. You have subsequently shown more sources and citations than the original writer. I do not know with respect that if the article was written today and published as a draft if it would be accepted. Secondary sources are missing, reliability cannot be judge and significant coverage is an open debate. It is honestly, with no malicious intent, written like an advertisement, for example the words: picturesque, value-based education inspired parents, growing need for quality education within the region. I belief some of those words are subjective to a specific person’s mind and not a source. Although I don’t like the word, it is peacocking. So in closing I just want to say, I am not involved in education in South Africa, I do not stay near Uplands and, I do not know anybody there. At least I belief if not deleted, that it respectfully be pushed back as a draft until the citations and peacocking are removed. This is my last contribution and lets wait for more comments. We need this debate in order to have uniformity about notability of high schools and to get clarification on the inclusion of primary schools. Regards Barry Ne (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging and trimming it for peacock verbiage is different from checking whether it has enough sources to establish notability. And since this is a K-12 school, it is not just a primary school but primary + secondary. The article itself doesn't have to have those sources written in yet. I've provided two different local newspapers that give significant coverage on issues concerning the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be crazy for Wikipedia to choose to alienate a few hundred thousand potential editors who look up high schools and get started with those. So keep because it is a high school. Also keep per AngusWOOF's different arguments. --Doncram (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Push back to draft. If notable, citations and some other problems could be sorted out in the draft format, and once everything is in place publish it again Barry Ne (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources listed above shows reliable and independent indepth coverage of the school. The first source, which is the only one that has any real history, looks like it's written by the school - it talks about "our badge" and "our hockey team". Also, it's a high school, even though South Africa uses the term college, so the [2017 RfC] suggests the bar is higher. I did a Google search and found this [[42]], which says it's the most expensive private school in the area, but that's it. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 05:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Ecleo, Sr., Dinagat Islands

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO hueman1 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cagdianao (and also all the other articles on individual barangays). The smallest administrative division does not have presumed notability, and this one appears to have no coverage apart from the expected weather, location, postcode, and government sources. (I note that there is a List of electoral wards in England by constituency, arranged by county, very few of which have individual articles. Perhaps there should be a List of barangays in the Philippines by city/municipality, arranged by province, rather than separate lists of barangays for each municipality.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @RebeccaGreen: According ot the Barangay article, there are 42,000 of them. That's an order of magnitude more than the English article. I'll be impressed if you can achieve that within the timeframe of this AfD and you'll have my undying admiration as a Wikipedia editor. SpinningSpark 10:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will have to admit upfront that I will not win your undying admiration, SpinningSpark. I had not read as far as the number of barangays! So listed by municipality or province would probably work better - unfortunately, I am not offering to create those lists, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Despite nom's unsupported claim to the contrary this handily passes NGEO. It's a populated legally recognized place. Per WP:GEOLAND it's notable. Perhaps this self-proclaimed deletionist ought to read the policies they cite before nominating any more articles for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't set too much store by the example of few bluelinks being in List of electoral wards in England by constituency. As a counter-example, the list in Wards of the City of London is 100% bluelink ... and they've all been developed into fairly respectable articles, so it can be done. SpinningSpark 23:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGEO as others have pointed out. Even the smallest administrative division is still a recognized division, and a recognized populated place. Smartyllama (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2018 (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. NOTGUIDE is a strong argument. There is a claim that independent sources exist, but none are presented here or in the article. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A-G requirements

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

Not Notable. Every college has a list of requirements. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable subject, and article doesn't prove anything -- like BeenAroundAWhile said, every college has these. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No policy or guideline says that, therefore this vote is invalid and should be ignored. p b p 19:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep First off, subject IS notable. Nominator has obviously not followed BEFORE...if he had done a 5-second Google search, he would have quickly have found that there are plenty of websites dealing with this that are independent of the CSU and UC systems. Also, some of the arguments for deletion here are quite specious. For example, we've got a claim of WP:NOT even though university enrollment guides is not something listed under WP:NOT. And this isn't just an "every college" situation, these are requirements used by over 30 institutions. Collectively, these admissions requirements are used by more applicants than any other set of admissions requirements in these United States. I frankly find it laughable that somebody would consider deleting a topic that is on a poster in basically every high school classroom in the state. p b p 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're thinking...why not a merge? Well, since this admission requirements serve two institutions, neither makes sense as a merge target. p b p 14:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:NOT there is a sub-section called WP:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a guide. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a stretch, @Ajf773:. None of the sub-examples of NOTGUIDE seem applicable if you ask me. Furthermore, I'd note that most of the subpoints of NOTGUIDE do not forbid content, instead they dictate writing style.p b p 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:54, 28 November 2018 (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. Nominator has effectively withdrew. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis (journalist)

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

Subject does not meet general WP:Notability requirements. The article is virtually a summary of articles the subject has written as a journalist. After doing some research it seems there are very few independent reliable sources that are directly about the subject itself, besides articles about a physical altercation. Derek M (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

To be clear I am not attempting to argue esports is not relevant for Wikipedia, WP:ESPORTS clearly demonstrates that. I am also not even arguing that Richard Lewis is not relevant within esports journalism, as his work (on, for example, exposing cheating in professional play) has sparked conversation within esports. What I am arguing is that he is one of the best of a niche field in the already-niche esports. Despite what Richard Lewis has said on Twitter, anger with him is not at all the motivation for this AfD request -- I am actually a fan of RL and when searching for sources to create an article for Thorin I decided I didn't believe he meet WP:N, and so I believed RL didn't as well for the same reasons. Being a fan of RL doesn't mean I believe he meets WP:N though. If I'm wrong, that's still okay, since then maybe I will write that Thorin article after all. Derek M (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I feel like with journalists, if they don't write for a major national newspaper/broadcaster or they have not won an award of some sort, they do not meet the notability stipulation. Moreover, e-sports is not yet seen as a mainstream "sport" - not even by the IOC (currently, it remains under consideration) who has led the way in thinking of considering its appeal. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some cleaning up, but Lewis was broadcasting on television for Turner Sports, which is a major media company. He qualifies under WP:JOURNALIST both being regarded as an important figure and widely cited; a quick search finds the largest industry award for this area, the Esports Awards, honored him in 2016 and he's widely quoted in that field. Whether Esports is a sport or a game isn't really relevant here, the issue is whether Esports is notable and if it isn't, there is a *lot* of cleaning up to do given that there are dozens of Esport-related categories; League of Legends alone has 89 players with entries.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis has been a contributor for major publications within his career such as The Daily Dot and Breitbart. He has also been host of a successful sports show on a major cable TV channel. Furthermore he has been nominated and has received many awards for his journalistic work within the category of "E-Sports". Thus I believe he meets that standards of WP:JOURNALIST as a figurehead in the reporting and presenting of "E-Sports" within the mainstream. I concur completely with the assessment by CoffeeCrumbs in that there may need to be some cleaning up to the article. GRSmith0 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I take your point about this not being about notability of e-sports, think that's valid. But just because someone broadcasted for Turner doesn't make them notable. If I read the news on BBC radio in Fife (Scotland), I wouldn't be considered notable, even though BBC radio in Fife is owned by the BBC. Also, given on Wikipedia, the Daily Mail is not considered to be a serious media outlet, then I don't see how we can count Breitbart as a serious media outlet. I don't know whether the Esports Awards are notable. They seem prima facie an award in a pretty niche sector, though I could be wrong on that. But regardless, it's hardly a major national award like a Pulitzer in the US or the British Press Awards in the UK. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with your analogy on the BBC. I'm not saying that he broadcasted on some local station or obscure offshoot that just happened to be owned by Turner Sports, he was broadcasting on TBS, Turner's flagship television station. As for awards, no, it's not the Oscars or an Emmy award, but it *is* the largest award in his industry and at the very least, it demonstrates that he's considered important by his peers (which is another part of the guideline).CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. [43][44][45][46][47][48] And to show that this isn't just in-industry promotional material, there's plenty of sources that depict Mr. Lewis in a negative light. [49][50] And in addition to this, there are numerous articles that do not have significant coverage of Mr. Lewis, but do talk about his work in a non-trivial fashion, which combined with the above would be enough to make WP:BASIC. [51] (winning esports journalist of the year), [52] [53][54] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say I'm still not overwhelmingly convinced. The Telegraph article was really a "passing reference" rather than Lewis being the actual subject of the story (he wasn't - the Youtube live-streaming service was). Having said that, I suppose "Kotaku" could well be a significant source of news in the gaming industry (over 2 million Twitter followers), though for me, it's not quite the level of reliability for a news organisation, say, like the NYTimes, which is Wikipedia's gold-standard. I am starting to think he may be a big enough name in the industry, though. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patar knight has convinced me the subject meets the notability guidelines, so I have changed my mind on this proposal. This is my first AfD so I'm unsure whether the discussion is expected to continue or whether I am expected to close this AfD somehow. Derek M (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Guma

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. References in the article is a non independent source that does not even cover the subject. Nothing in my search comes up as a WP:SIGCOV, WP:SECONDARY, reliable or independent of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he publishes, but I can't find WP:SIGCOV. Note that his claim to notability is that: "He is the Managing Editor of Nehanda Radio and Nehanda TV.", but these two may not be notable either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madhawa Srinath Thirimanna

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE, only received merit award at non-notable national film awards (not award winner). IMDb is not a reliable or acceptable secondary source. PROD notice removed without addressing the issues. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Beer Club

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

Delete There are many problems with this article. It is entirely promotional, especially the "Reviews" section which serves no other purpose other than to promote the club. I have read every reference and none meets the criteria for establishing notability failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I've tried working with the article creator and despite discussions on my Talk page, we're butting heads and not making progress. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me first of all point out that article reviewers such as HighKing are required to be civil in their dealings with editors, and the phrase "butting heads" used by HighKing is over-the-top and not, in my opinion, civil. The phrase seems to imply intransigence and an unwillingness on my part to improve the article, which is certainly not demonstrated by the history of the article’s revisions, nor by the comments that I have left on his and the article own Talk pages. When HighKing mentions that the article is, in his opinion, not notable, he fails to mention that another reviewer, Legacypac, determined that the article was notable while it was still in draftspace, as proven by the latter’s comments on HighKing’s own Talk page. This would at least imply that its notability is subject to interpretation. I should also point out in fairness that HighKing had promised me that he would search for links that might establish the notability of the article’s subject, but as far as I know, he has not yet done this, and his nominating the article for deletion seems to make it unlikely he'll fulfill that promise.

HighKing first tagged, and then attempted to delete, the article’s Reviews section, which is the strongest proof of the Rare Beer Club’s notability. He did this on the grounds that this section is especially "promotional" in an article that he believes, without evidence, is “entirely promotional,” seeming to imply that all the sources I have listed, including the Los Angeles Times, Fortune and Popular Mechanics, are somehow in the pay of the Rare Beer Club. Or perhaps he merely misinterprets that part of the WP:NOTE article that deals with this matter. That section prohibits either self-promotion or advertising, marketing and public relations. The Reviews section, however, is neither self-promotion nor advertising, since it presents links to independent third-party sources containing quotes commenting on the article's subject. HighKing took particular exception to the sentence, "The Rare Beer Club has received positive reviews from many print and online media sources." But this sentence is a objective statement of fact. If I had located negative reviews of the club, I would have linked to them as well, and written, equally accurately, "The Rare Beer Club has received mixed reviews…"

Finally, it should be noted that the article Tesla Model 3, to name one of many possible examples, contains multiple links to reviews of that product, but that that page was never, as far as I know, tagged as "promotional." Three years ago, I successful nominated the article Pather Panchali, about the classic Indian film of that name, as a Today’s Featured Article, and it appeared as a TFA on August 16, 2015 (its 50th anniversary). No doubt, HighKing would consider the Release and reception section of that article, in which there are links to sources containing original reviews of the film, to be a shameless promotion of Satyajit Ray, the film’s director.

I am perfectly willing to revise the article to improve it, if HighKing or another reviewer finally offers constructive suggestions, but I need to point out that I may be limited in my ability to do so within the seven-day period, as I will soon be undergoing a major medical procedure and will need time to recover. Depending on my condition, I may need to ask that HighKing withdraw the article from AfD temporarily, until I’m strong enough to make the necessary changes. I will have to review my health situation by November 10th to make that decision. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've tried to point out to the article creator that the "Reviews" section (now renamed "Reception") is entirely promotional. Any attempts to tag the sections was met with an instant removal. The editor is simply unwilling to listen and refused to accept there was any problems with the article and is relying on Legacypac's approval of the draft as confirmation that the article is perfectly fine. This was discussed at my Talk page. The following explanation was provided there in relation to the available references and the applicable policies/guidelines.

I tagged the article for potential notability issues to give the topic experts time to find good references but the author appears to have taken exception and came to my Talk page after removing the tag. Since then, I've politely asked that Dylanexpert highlight the two references he believes meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, Dylanexpert lists "reliable mainstream sources" of The Los Angeles Times, Fortune and The Wall Street Journal. As I'm sure you know, "reliable mainstream sources" is not the criteria we should be looking at - let's just accept those publications indeed meet the relevant criteria for reliable sources - but the content of those articles is important. I don't have access to the WSJ at this location just now so I cannot comment on that reference. The LA Times reference relies entirely on information provided by Kris Calef - who owns the Rare Beer Club. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and fails the criteria for establishing notability. The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club but for me, I do not regard it as in-depth coverage - closer to a mention-in-passing - and discusses the subscription service and not the organization and likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. At a push, it is a weak reference. Other references such as the localbeerblog, mantelligence, berghoffbeer.com, ifmycoastercouldtalk.bangordailynews.com and blog.ggbailey.com, fail WP:RS since they are blogs, the beermonthclub is a PRIMARY source, the beerpulse reference is an Ad therefore PRIMARY, the various obituaries for Jackson don't mention the topic company, references like the Chicago Tribune, artofmanliness.com, brit.co and goop.com include a Rare Beer Club subscription in their lists of gift suggestions for whenever (Christmas, Fathers Day, Holidays) but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the Popular Mechanics reference is a mention in passing that talks about how great the service is but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the americancraftberr.com reference is a mention-in-passing plugging the service and fails CORPDEPTH, the hop-cast is basically a vlog and mentions getting a bottle with their subscription and fails CORPDEPTH.

The "Reviews"/"Reception" section is nothing but a cherry-picked section of positive comments, primarily about the beers and nothing about the club/organization itself. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many refs from notable sources substantiate the correct inclusion of this page. This is not written in an Advertorial manner, it just reflects the sources. I actively delete spam all the time, so this is not an inexperienced vote. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list any two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Please also see my comments above in relation to the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I changed the title of the section from "Reviews" to "Reception" and eliminated the sentence about holiday and Father's Day gift-buying guides as possibly too promotional-sounding. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, thank you. But the primary issue is finding any two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s fair at all that HighKing is engaging in this controversy while I’m recovering from surgery, as mentioned above, but I’ll do my best to counter his arguments.

HighKing throughout is claiming that I am doing exactly what he is actually doing: namely, he is claiming that I’m ignoring him, while it is really he who is ignoring me. HighKing has never denied that he indicated he’d help me with the article, nor can he deny that he hasn’t helped me as promised. HighKing simply dismisses his own previous offers of help.

HighKing’s use of the phrase "cherry picked" implies that I dishonestly selected positive comments about the club and ignored any negative ones. As I’ve said already (and which HighKing typically didn’t listen to), I found no negative reviews for this club. The reviews are not "cherry-picked," because they are typical of the reception to this club. If I found, or if HighKing found, negative reviews of the club, I would gladly cite them as well. The burden of proof is on HighKing to find negative reviews to support his allegation. Meanwhile, I am not going to delete the Reception section as that very section constitutes proof of the club’s notability.

HighKing’s assertion that the reviews are "primarily about the beers and nothing about the club/organization itself" doesn’t make any sense… as I’ve already explained. This company is not Microsoft or Amazon; it’s a small organization. The beer club is the company. To expect online commentators to talk about something else besides the beer, such as, for example, the company’s corporate structure, is incredibly naïve. There are articles, like that of Mantelligence (citing The Wall Street Journal), that refer to the history of the company by mentioning Michael Jackson as the founder, but HighKing ignores this.

HighKing states above: "The editor is simply unwilling to listen and refused to accept there was any problems with the article and is relying on Legacypac's approval of the draft as confirmation that the article is perfectly fine." If this were true, if I had thought the article “perfectly fine,” I would not have made any subsequent changes to it. The article’s “view history” and its own Talk Page, demonstrate that I have made substantial changes since that conversation on HighKing’s Talk Page, one of which HighKing himself acknowledges above. I have proven myself ready and willing to cooperate when a suggestion makes sense to me. But I am not willing to obey everything HighKing says, or accept him as the ultimate authority on Wikipedia.

HighKing says: "But the primary issue is finding any two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability." Okay. Let’s talk about the Fortune article. HighKing says: "The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club." This is not true, as I’ve already pointed out. It’s quite clear from the context which parts of the Fortune article refer to the Rare Beer Club, and that the writer does so at length. Furthermore, the Fortune writer goes out of his way to indicate that the club, like similar clubs, is expensive and thus not for everyone, so the writer’s mostly positive review of the club is tempered by this fact. This makes it clear that the Fortune article is, as per WP:NCORP, significant, independent, reliable and secondary. As to the Popular Mechanics article, it mentions The Rare Beer Club not in passing but as the main subject. It has no connection to the club, so it’s not a primary source. It is independent, because the article mentions potentially negative aspects of the club as well as positive ones: "The shipping costs are a pain." It is reliable because it’s not self-published, but is a reputable publication going back to 1902. So the Popular Mechanics article is significant, independent, reliable and secondary, and thus proves notability.

Because of health issues, I don’t know if I can respond anymore, but I think I’ve laid out my case for keeping the article. Dylanexpert (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry to hear you've health issues, hope you get well.

There are a total of 8 sentences in that article that clearly talks about RBC. One sentence tells us that the RBC typically ships two 750ml bottles and costs $50 after shipping and handling. Also, the Fortune article does not contain the sentence "The shipping costs are a pain" or anything close to it.
Of the remaining 7 sentences dealing with the RBC, the 4th is a quotation from Calef, the owner.
Of the remaining 6 sentences, the first sentence reminds us that the RBC ships beer and tell you that likely it will be something you've never had before. The second sentence says that typically, one bottle is from overseas and the other isn't, and reminds the reader that the owner, Calef, works with some US brewers to make batches that are exclusive to the club. Calef's quotation is directly supporting this "fact". With an eye on how much of the entire paragraph is clearly attributable to sources unaffiliated with the subject, I note that this "fact" doesn't appear in any other literature about the RBC that I have been able to locate - therefore I believe this "fact" was provided to the author by Calef for the purposes of this article. For this reason, I believe the article fails WP:ORGIND. Your mileage may vary.
NCORP also requires that the article is significant. As per WP:CORPDEPTH Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
For me, 8 sentences in an article where the topic company isn't even the subject matter of the article is not significant. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To HighKing: First, you mention above that the phrase "the shipping costs are a pain" doesn't appear in the Fortune article. Of course, it doesn't, because even a cursory reading of my comments above reveals that I was referring to the Popular Mechanics article, in which the phrase does appear, NOT to the Fortune article. Please read my text carefully before you attempt to refute it. Second, this discussion has been relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." That means that users other than you, me and LegacyPac should weigh in on the discussion. So let's both chill for awhile. Okay? Dylanexpert (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge On the surface the article appears widely referenced and extensively written, but the sources mostly seem to be promotional articles written on behalf the company themselves. No other beer clubs, many of which are more noteworthy (i.e. Ratebeer, Beermerchants) have pages, and I'm doubtful the club passes notability tests on Organisations/Companies, which stipulates there must be: Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If the article takes into account other beer subscription clubs, parts of it could maybe be saved by merging with the page on Beer Culture. AbrahamCat (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while there may be some arguments for notability, this is a clearly self promotional article and it would best be merged with another article as suggested above. Skirts89 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garous Abdolmalekian

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources are a translation of one of his poems, and interviews with his translator Idra Novey. Nothing reliable, verifiable, or independent. Cabayi (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The corresponding fawiki article was nominated for deletion back in March. [The consensus] was to keep it.N~~ight~~D 18:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:49, 28 November 2018 (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. Can be userfied via WP:REFUND on request. Sandstein 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELerator

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

No independent references in the article, and none found ([55] is commissioned by the College Board); however this is an extremely difficult term to search for. The entire article would likely need to be WP:TNT replaced if references about the program's impact were found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This isn't an article yet. There is a fair amount of professional literation to be found in ERIC reporting or at least discussing this project. for example , https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/EXCELerator_Impact_Year_2_report_0.pdf (there are a number of similar programs with similar names, so this is a bit of a project. But the material is there. ) The article was started in 2009 by an excellent and responsible editor , Moonriddengirl, who I hope will finish it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Thanks for the ping. I didn't start this one; it was actually a draft written by the editor I credited in the edit summary to address a copyright problem, User:Mgreason. Mgreason seems to have been inactive since April, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (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. Sandstein 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Life

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

While Hollywood Life is slightly notorious for their editorial style (if you could even call it that), the Great Value version of TMZ, an online version of Star, I don’t think they have enough notability for an article. Their parent company claims they reach ~30 million women a month but that figure couldn’t be independently verified. The only reliable source, WSJ, is pay walled so I’m unable to see it but it appears to be more about editor in chief Bonnie Fuller than the website itself. Other sources only mention them briefly and/or focus more on Fuller. If the page isn’t chosen for deletion I highly recommend redirecting it to Penske Media Corporation Trillfendi (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources e.g. in New York Times, Wall Street Journal (which has substantial coverage on the website as well as Bonnie Fuller), Ad Week, Adage, Hollywood Reporter. There is also coverage on other aspects of the website e.g. here a Justin Bieber-inspired campaign - [56][57][58]. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh 2 paragraphs (the first sentence, really) into that NYT link point out exactly what I’m talking about; the article is about Bonnie Fuller’s career and Penske Media, it’s not about the website itself. I’m still not able to get to WSJ article “Bonnie Fuller starts to trend” but do they verify these promotional claims of their monthly traffic? AdWeek says right there “Bonnie Fuller gets a nice profile piece in the Wall Street Journal”! That perfectly illustrates my rationale. From reading AdAge it’s once again about Fuller and Penske media rather than Hollywood Life on its own legs. When talking about the website their own publisher says "Bonnie has 5 million uniques.” Shouldn’t it be the website? Hollywood Reporter continues the theme of prefacing every statement with Fuller and Penske. Now, is Justin Bieber having a vendetta against their... lack of editorial standards, and telling his fans to “spam” them really “notability”? I have to stand by the notability-isn’t-inherited notion. We should really redirect this.Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you are arguing about something you can't see. I have also no idea why you dismiss the other articles that discuss primarily about the company (e.g. the visitors it had how it affect advertising) or understand that "Bonnie has 5 million uniques" clearly is a reference to the website. It is possible for articles to cover both the person and website at the same time, given that they are linked. The Justin Bieber incidence is significant enough to be covered by The Independent (which is a major newspaper in the United Kingdom). The website is clearly significant enough to warrant press coverage (or indeed for Justin Bieber to bother campaigning against it). Hzh (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh How is saying traffic numbers coming from inside the company yet not being independently verified “arguing” about it. 🤔 Go and use your WSJ subscription, I really don’t personally care. I’m pointing these things out as I’m the one who proposed deletion; if you think these improve the quality of the article then be my guest. The primary issue that made me propose deletion is that Bonnie Fuller is being used as a synecdoche for this website and I have yet to see to see a reliable source cover this website in depth without giving the entire weight to Penske Media or Fuller. It’s supposed to be able to stand on its own too. This is an example of how a website’s notability and stats can and should be established and verified without placing it all on its founder, in my opinion. Or this. And I know what the Independent is.Trillfendi (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no subscription to WSJ but still can read it. I think it sets a limit on page views for non-subscribers. Hzh (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article's subject as currently defined probably passes WP:GNG anyway, it's worth noting that the story in this article starts with the brand relaunch, rather than the current website's origins as a magazine/website in its Movieline days (see, e.g., [59]) before the acquisition. Hollywood Life had RS coverage well before Fuller ever showed up. In other words, if there's any apparent notability issue, it's because the article is incomplete. It's possible that a multiple-page reorganization would provide a better service to readers, but that's an editing issue to discuss on article talk pages, not a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments above. --Doncram (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olena Chekan

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

I've tried, but I just can't see the notability of this person. She apparently has a minute and uncredited non-speaking part in Solaris (clip available on YouTube, not linking per WP:LINKVIO). Unfortunately I speak neither Russian nor Ukrainian, so please forgive me if I have overlooked substantial in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources in either of those languages. I did try looking for sources under "Yelena Chekan" as well as "Olena Chekan". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned it up by removing all the horrible genealogy stuff but what was left was very light and I'm afraid it doesn't make the grade. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG certainly a family hommage page. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not much help beyond this, but a google search "Олени Чекан" (taken from the Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia articles) returns a significant amount of material. Is any of it reliable? I can't tell. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She was the actress in more than 20 films, author and performer of more than 10 theatrical monos, a screenwriter of several films, author of a book, television presenter. --Perohanych (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have deleted some of the worst messes from this article before but they keep reappearing. I do believe she is notable (you need to look for Russian/Ukrainian sources; her UK wiki article seems to have been written by independent editors), but her EN wiki article has been hijacked by her son who is intent to pile on anything and everything disregarding any kind of Wikipedia conventions (apparent WP:CIR issues). So to clean up this article, we can either ban the son or delete the article. Renata (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just spoke with the son of Olena Chekan and persuaded him to stop editing the page about his mother. Perohanych (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel like this article passes notability guidelines. Skirts89 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Perohanych, meet WP:NACTOR. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a misuse of WP:NACTOR here which says had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Which of her movies are Wikipedia notable here? None. I have no opinion about the subject and it seems she may meet WP:GNG anyways (though this article needs to be rewritten to go along with the sources), so no !vote for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2018 (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. Great Cockroach 007 and BiNA have been blocked. Sandstein 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Drogalchuk

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

Non-notable blogger/journalist. Coverage appears to be exclusively in the publication Obozrevatel, and consists of an inclusion in a top-10 list [60] and a bio [61]. Amusingly, that second source establishes that the subject has worked for Obozrevatel, which makes the source non-independent to boot. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO The Ukrainian and Russian wikipedia articles do not provide any additional sources other than links to the subject's blog. I attempted to find more sources online in English, Russian, and Ukrainian and failed, although I will admit that I'm not very familiar with Ukrainian media and could have missed something. Originally nominated for PROD by me, dePROD by initial editor Great Cockroach 007 with the justification I withdraw the nomination because of the obvious importance of the person. Firstly, the rating indicated in the article and biographical dossier is on the most popular information resource in Ukraine. Secondly, I will look for sources that I have met on the Internet. They definitely were. In any case, I will try to find the archives. Thirdly, in the case of a shortage of sources, put a template for improvement, although all the information in the article is available in the main source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not specifically justify and defend. The article is a translation of a fairly well-known character in Ukarin, far from narrow circles. Compiled by the TOP site (especially the second place in the rating) + biographical dossier on the site, which is the most popular or included in the TOP-5 of Ukrainian information resources. This is an information bomb that automatically gives value. Yes, as far as I know, the subject of the article worked with this resource. But not now and this is indicated in the biography. What makes the source absolutely neutral. Now, obviously, Dmytro is working with another Ukrainian giant - the Korrespondent. This is indicated as in the biography [3]. And he is far from a novice blogger and journalist. You do not look at age. As far as I know, he was leading children's programs on small television channels in Ukraine; and since the beginning of the war, in his 14-15 years, he has already become a special correspondent (this is in his biography on the same Obozrevatel). I personally oppose deletion as an article translator. --Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC) This editor was blocked for sockpuppeting[reply]

I was invited to vote as a user who edited the main article. Let nothing colossal, I did not write and did not correct, but leave the opinion. I do not see a particular problem for removal. Perhaps for the English Wikipedia this is less important than for the Ukrainian version of the project. But, of course, this is important, it is confirmed by the Observer. You just look at the popularity of the browser itself. And a small remark, this is not as a criterion of significance, but for information only - an article about this “newcomer”, 2,500 people looked at this month. And we are talking about a 19-year-old journalist from Ukraine. For me, this is an important indicator. And there, let the public decide. -BiNA (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)This editor was blocked for sockpuppeting[reply]

Additional comment from nom I see from the edit history of the editors that have commented above that this subject was already brought to AfD under a different name back in May Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmytro_Baker _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a weak article, as from a dictionary. I invited the author of this article to express his opinion here. I wrote a full translation, but not a small note, as from a dictionary. I see no problems with this. Then I first left a comment and only when I figured out with significance - I voted. --Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this article passes notability guidelines. At minimum needs to be rewritten since it's clearly self-promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the accounts that you accused of a puppet existence, it's you in vain. I, as a patrolman and author in Ukrainian Wikipedia, know about these users, they are quite popular. This is a married couple and a sister of a member of the couple who registered on Wikipedia for a theme evening in Ukraine. And the fact that they contribute from one PC is not a reason for blocking. Regarding the character about which the article, then everything is obvious. For Ukrainian journalism, especially in the war zone in the east of the country, there is significance and it is quite large. A biography on such a resource is a great achievement for a journalist. And the rating, which is one of the main ones in the Ukrainian media, makes Dmytro also very significant in the blogosphere. My opinion. —Jack Bulitlo (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Balcaen

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. I searched sources for notability and although she was All-American Series ROTY that's not notable enough. One K&N race does not justify a page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Very) Weak Keep for now: Seems to have a decent number of sources, perhaps if someone digs deep enough, we have something that could be saved. The K&N level is clearly notable enough (and WP coverage of the series has improved tremendously in the last calendar year), though there's only a single start...I think this might be salvagable, but it needs work. I tend to be an inclusionist on here but I can't say I'd wholeheartdly oppose deletion as it stands. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have 1 race in the regional K&N East circuit (a 20th place finish). Don't believe that's enough to meet WP:NMOTORSPORTS. I also don't believe rookie of the year at an even lower level is sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi Technologies, Inc.

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

Sourced primarily by blogs or press-releases, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also an issue with promotional language. The similar article was rightly rejected at AfC Draft:Wasabi Hot Storage. Potential WP:COI issue. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think there could be a COI here and will warn the article creator. Deb (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned it up a bit and eliminated some of the advertising lingo. I'm not impressed as to notability though. There's the one award, I suppose. Deb (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo -- There's no COI as I understand it! I'm interested in the space (Boston startups) & in contributing to Wikipedia in general! As a follow on, I thought there was sufficient significant coverage (especially compared to similar companies' pages) & a neutral tone. However, if not am happy to revise any overly promotional parts! Just not sure which ones people are referring to. Everything felt like a pretty neutral statement of fact about a new company making an interesting impact on the cloud storage / boston startup scene. Roger Bevins The 3rd (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are several mentions at trusted local media including the Bostone Globe. It also has one reputable mention at Forbes and a brief mention at Fortune. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Forbes article is a "Contributor" item, which is usually not considered reliable. Fortune is a one line mention._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foot Levelers

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

NN company - looks like a spammy article to me. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the References section is sparse, there's a Sources section in the article with numerous sources. I haven't looked at them closely, but briefly clicking on some of them suggest enough coverage to meet WP:CORP. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has a tag saying this meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations heading the article. Vorbee (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tag on an article isn't a valid argument to delete it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (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 and redirect to Ghulam Ahmed Perwez. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exposition of the Holy Quran

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBOOK MT Train^Talk 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghulam Ahmed Perwez, which links this article's only source, the site of the publisher's english translation(s). Google Scholar searches are not showing me a wealth of potential independent, secondary sources. Also, in my cursory attempt to copyedit for promotional tone, I notice the text focuses on the difficulty of translation into English, but it appears Perwez only translated into Urdu before he died, so most of this brief write-up dwells on a tangent (or an apology). This suggests there may not be enough to make a good freestanding article on this book. Subject is potentially interesting, so I hope someone will prove me wrong on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helenna Santos

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actress and producer, "best known" for a direct-to-streaming film and a one-shot appearance on a TV show. These are not article-clinching notability claims per WP:NACTOR, but none of the sourcing here is cutting it in terms of getting her over WP:GNG -- the article is reference bombed to a pile of primary sources, blogs, YouTube videos, glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about other people and pieces in which she's the bylined author and not the subject -- literally the closest thing there is here to a notability-supporting source is a single article in a smalltown community pennysaver. The sourcing here is simply not good enough, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat's analysis of the sourcing is spot on. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and the don't pass WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when someone is best known for a one episode minor role in a TV show they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (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. Because this was co-nominated with Peter Belohlavek, this article was already deleted before I noticed that there was a separate AfD. The result is the same, though. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicist Research Institute

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

Non-notable research institute, does not meet WP:NORG, may not even meet WP:GNG, ~~could possibly even be a hoax and/or pseudoscience~~. I wasn't able to track down any of the non-affiliated publications online, nor was I able to find any other mention of the institute in non-affiliated publications. I could understand some of these articles being hard to find, as the institute was founded before the Internet existed, but not being able to track down any of them is a red flag. Moreover, between their titles and the claims that they are attached to in the article, it's unclear if these articles would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE even if they exist. Searching for either the research institute or its founder, Peter Belohlavek on Google Scholar returned no independent coverage and a paltry amount of papers with very few citations–Belohlavek appears to have an h-index of 4, which is pretty low for any professional academic, let alone the founder of a research institute! And this is despite the article claiming that their research has been put into practice in developing the economies of Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Ukraine, and the UK, as well as supposedly having been employed by Renault and American Express. The sourcing over at Peter Belohlavek is similarly threadbare, and it appears that it is actually a recreation of a previously deleted article (AfD discussion). In addition, despite having spent a significant amount of time attempting to research this subject, and despite personally having an academic background in the linguistic and philosophical fields that the article claims the subject's research is grounded in, I still feel like I barely understand what the institute supposedly does. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relevant criteria- Notability and Verifiability to keep this article.

Following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I am sharing the arguments for keeping this article: The sources can be tracked and provided. From a research on this, national coverage newspapers can be found, and some are among the most prestigious newspapers in the region such as Brazilian, Uruguayan and Argentinian newspapers, and such as “La Nación” and “El Cronista Comercial” newspapers of national coverage among others (As seen in the references).

The sources that are not from the Internet, are in the form of newspaper articles and magazine articles, which are all available for physical consultation. As stated in the guidelines: “There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online.”

I believe the national origin of the newspapers cited is not an issue to consider an article for deletion. If it would be useful to translate the sources, please I would appreciate your advice, since they are all verifiable and reliable sources.

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Following the guidelines, the article meets the primary criteria, having the 5 required components of: significant coverage, multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.

Since the ongoing project on the application of the evolutionary economics to Micro-economics driven development for countries is announced for the end of November with the participation of volunteers, I am suggesting to remove this fragment from the article for the time being until secondary sources are provided for this particular case that can be verified, and then include this back with particular information if relevant.

The cases of Renault and American Express that were mentioned have been published and were of national reach in Argentina. The source of this can be found in "Radiografía del caso Renault". published in the magazine Noticias, Editorial Perfil (national coverage) and in the book Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. (Third edition), which are both mentioned in the References. Prague3 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide quoted excerpts from some of the articles in question that demonstrate that they provide significant coverage of the subject, especially the sources that would support the claims regarding Renault and American Express? Spanish is fine, I can read it fluently. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am providing a few below for the mentioned cases, preceded by their source, which I hope will be helpful. Other sources are also available to be shared if necessary. Thanks.

Some sources with excerpts that can be found below:

-Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.

-“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31.

-“Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28.

-Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88

-Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. ISBN 950-537-146-2.

-"Radiografía del caso Renault". Noticias. Section: Empresas, p. 58-59: Editorial Perfil. 1990-01-14.

Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.

Argentina faces 20-year transition period

“Future Research and scenario building is a little known area of research in Argentina, yet it has produced a breakthrough that makes other systems obsolete.”

“The methodology on which this approach to the construction of future scenarios is based is the Unicist Theory of Evolution developed by Peter Belohlavek, that enables one to build the drivers that determine the evolution of individuals, institutions and cultures.”

“The next 20 years for Argentina as seen as a transition period. At which point Belohlavek recalled a famous Chinese curse: “May you live through a transition period”.”

“Argentina has opted for a State model that corresponds to shrinking cultures or a country with shrinking sectors, which begins to give it consistency beyond the difficulties generated by actions by individual government officials rather than actions by the State as an institution. ”

“Corruption will continue to drop as the system becomes more efficient and the separation of individuals from institutions increases.”

“Until now the construction of future scenarios had been based on consensus. The Unicist methodology makes them obsolete as it is structured on the drivers that are the result of the concepts that underlie every process of evolution. It is a qualitative jump. Starting with the drivers it is possible to build multiple operational alternative and agreed on courses of action that can influence the future.”

Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Diners, Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. pp. 25–42. ISBN 950-537-146-2.

Diners

Sobre la base del caso Diners Club realizado por M&T

“La aplicación de un modelo de “organización personalizada” para el cambio de tecnología y cultura.”

(…) “Diners Club Argentina, en el año 1981 pasaba por un momento de transición muy difícil. En manos del grupo Capozzolo, el Dr. Edgardo Gómez Luengo, asume la gerencia general, iniciando una nueva etapa.”

“Comenzó, entonces, un proceso de reorganización que duró un año y medio, que permitiera lograr una orientación hacia el mercado. Para ello se puso en marcha el modelo de “Organización Personalizada”. El objetivo era lograr que el adherente de Diners fuera considerado no simplemente como adherente, sino como un verdadero socio, lo que implicaba que recibiera un trato personalizado. Este plan significaba que debía trabajarse de afuera hacia adentro, con lo cual Gómez Luengo se vio obligado a montar un esquema de marketing diferente, con una publicidad dirigida a los niveles centrales a los que apuntaba Diners y una inteligente segmentación de mercado.”

“El éxito se determinó a raíz de un incremento del 50% en las ventas, un porcentaje que logró alcanzarse en un tiempo de 45 días.”

“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31.

Reveladora encuesta de American Express

“Los gastos en viajes alcanzaron los US$330 millones en 1987

“Las empresas argentinas invirtieron 330 millones de dólares en gastos de representación y viajes durante 1987, es decir, un promedio diario de 900.000 dólares.”

“Una encuesta efectuada a 500 empresas de primera línea permitió demostrar que el 42% de éstas estimó que los gastos en ese rubro mantendrán en los próximos años una tendencia claramente ascendente.”

“El estudio, encomendado a M&T por American Express, reveló también la falta de políticas definidas en el rubro viajes y representación de las empresas privadas en el país.”

“En efecto, a pesar del importante volumen de recursos afectados al rubro viajes y representación sólo un tercio de la muestra mostró tener una estrategia concreta de erogaciones.”

“Un análisis más pormenorizado permite observar que un exiguo 7% de las 500 empresas sondeadas tiene una política escrita y revisada anualmente para esa área.”

“Durante la presentación del trabajo, el vicepresidente de American Express, Pablo Kusher, hizo especial hincapié en que dentro de las condiciones en que se desenvuelve la economía del país, cobra una creciente importancia una correcta administración e inversión en ese tipo de gastos. Kusher estuvo acompañado por el gerente de Sistemas de la Compañía American Express, Esteban Mac Garrell, y el presidente de M&T, Pedro Belohlavek.”

"Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28.

En 1897 se usaron 330 millones de dólares con este fin.

“Algunos datos que se manejan al margen de las grandes estadísticas alimentan la impresión de que en el país la situación y las perspectivas de las empresas privadas no son tan desalentadoras como usualmente se las ven. Por caso, los resultados de un trabajo de investigación encargado por American Express a M&T, que demuestran que las empresas argentinas gastaron en viajes y representación 330 millones de dólares a lo largo de 1987.”

“Esa erogación está enormemente lejos de la que hace los Estados Unidos (95.000 millones de dólares anuales) o el Brasil (2600 millones), aunque más cerca de México (500 millones). Pero sin embargo el estudio demuestra también que 39% de las compañías aumentó sus gastos de viaje y representación en 39% durante 1986 con respecto al año anterior, estimándose que entre 1986 y 1987 el aumento fue de 43%.”

“Además, 42% de las empresas encuestadas opinó que estos gastos mantendrán una tendencia creciente en los próximos años lo que vinculan a inminentes expansiones tanto de la compañía como del mercado donde operan.”

“La investigación demuestra que sobre las razones que motivarán el aumento, 42% de los encuestados opinó que se deberá a la expansión de la empresa, 16% a la mejora en los resultados obtenidos o expectativas favorables, 13% a la necesidad de abrir y conquistar nuevos mercados de exportación y 5% a la necesidad de mantenerse actualizado.”

“La encuesta se realizó entre 440 empresas privadas de capital, Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Rosario y Mendoza, y se las clasificó de acuerdo al personal empleado en chicas (hasta 50 agentes), medianas (hasta 200) y grandes (más de 200), aunque también se las clasificó según la metodología de decisión en clásica, industrial y tecnológica. En la organización clásica el proceso decisorio está centrado en sus líderes, en la industria en el método o técnica, y en la tecnológica la decisión está puesta en la tecnología.”

“El estudio demuestra que 92% de las empresas tecnológicas define a los gastos de viaje y representación como muy importantes. Señala también que el promedio anual de ese tipo de erogaciones es de 25.000 dólares para las empresas chicas, 145.000 para las medianas y 420.000 para las grandes.”

“Sin embargo, como indicio del limitado avance que todavía tiene la cuestión en el país, el estudio demuestra que sólo 32% de las empresas cuenta con una política de gastos de viaje y representación a los efectos de un adecuado manejo administrativo, 68% restante suele resolver los diferentes temas en base a las circunstancias que deben enfrentarse y de acuerdo a la jerarquía de la persona que las asuma.”

Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88

“Las empresas argentinas gastaron en viajes y representación 330 millones de dólares a lo largo de 1987, es decir una cifra cercana al millón de dólares por día, revela un informe realizado por M&T a pedido de American Express Argentina.”

“En la ocasión el vicepresidente general de la División Viajes y Sistemas de Compañía, Pablo Kuscher, dio a conocer el estudio de mercado que, entre otras cosas, refleja que el nivel de gasto no es casual, “por cuanto un 42% de la muestra opinó que las erogaciones en ese rubro mantendrán una tendencia creciente en los próximos años”.”

“Concretamente a través del sondeo efectuado a 500 empresas representativas del mercado total, se observa que un alto porcentaje de los consultados espera que sus gastos de viaje y representación se incrementen debido a inminentes expansiones tanto de la compañía como del mercado donde operan.”

“Un análisis pormenorizado muestra en este sentido que entre las razones de ese esperado aumento el 42% opina que se deberá a la expansión de la empresa, el 16% a la mejora de los resultados obtenidos o expectativas favorables, el 13% a la necesidad de abrir y conquistar nuevos mercados de exportación y un 5% a la necesidad de mantenerse actualizado.”

Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. pp. 3–23. ISBN 950-537-146-2.

Caso Renault

(…) La utilización de un modelo de management como catalizador del proceso (p. 3) basado en el caso Renault Argentina realizado por M&T.

Renault, en la Argentina, intentaba reproducir la organización conceptual de su casa matriz, en donde la empresa se dividía en áreas funcionales. En el organigrama de Renault se podía apreciar claramente esa situación, en la que la existencia de comités aseguraba que esos planteos funcionales se integrasen en los objetivos de dirección. Se manejaban diferentes comités, entre los cuales estaba el que definía un producto, y es ahí donde se integraban las áreas funcionales que hacen a la definición del mismo. Este modelo de organización es fácilmente comprensible desde la óptica del modelo de organización francés y argentino. (p. 9)

… De esta manera en Renault incidieron en forma muy significativa los modelos implícitos de las dos culturas, el modelo de Francia y el modelo de Argentina. (p. 9)

El programa de productividad en el área comercial se plasmó en la aplicación de la “Administración centrada en el cliente” para definir los procesos, uniendo a ella una mayor productividad de los hombres de ventas. Se estaba evidenciando que la productividad no era la reducción de los costos sino la optimización de la relación costo-beneficio. Esto exigía, entonces, reducir costos y al mismo tiempo centrar los esfuerzos para ganar en las ventas. (p.23)

(…) Esto sucedió con Renault, que en ese entonces, a pesar de su liderazgo comercial y su penetración en el mercado, tenía un rojo contable (…) de veinte millones de dólares. Una situación que quita el sueño a cualquiera y de la que Jacques Ramondou, director general de Renault Argentina, no estaba excluido. El es quien decide entonces buscar alternativas de cambio, montando lo que se llamó el “programa de productividad”.

(…) A partir de un análisis organizacional, se detectó la necesidad de rediseñar los puestos de trabajo con el objeto de acortar los tiempos de proceso, lo que significó también pulir los procedimientos pertinentes. (p. 5)

… El empleo de este enfoque para analizar el valor agregado de la comunicación (al proceso) permitió, en Renault, eliminar funciones intermedias redundantes, y por el otro lado obligó a crear funciones intermedias que faltaban. Este esquema se relaciona directamente con el tema, es la investigación de la imagen, que permite determinar cuan centrífugas o centrípetas son las imágenes de cada uno para darles el lugar adecuado de manera que resulten confiables. Una vez se puede observar la utilización de técnicas de investigación de mercado aplicadas a metodologías de organización. (p. 21)

(…) Renault buscaba que sus productos fueran diferenciados y, a su vez, aplicaba la estrategia de segmentación, con lo cual necesitaba una gran habilidad comercial. Por otra parte, estaba obligada a mejorar su situación de costos a través de un proceso de productividad que le permitiera compensar las ventajas competitivas que tenían otras automotrices debido a los convenios de intercambio con el Brasil. (p. 22)

"Radiografía del caso Renault". Noticias. Section: Empresas, p. 58-59: Editorial Perfil. 1990-01-14.

Radiografía del caso Renault: Como remontar la cuesta

Sobre la base del caso Renault Argentina realizado por M&T

(…) “El programa que encaró la dirección general estaba basado en la necesidad de producir un importante mejoramiento en la efectividad, concretado en mayor productividad, enfrentando a una competencia fuerte encabezada por Sevel, Ford y Volkswagen.”

“La técnica empleada en este caso fue la de trabajar de forma participativa con todos los integrantes de Renault que estaban involucrados en el proceso.”

… “El programa de productividad en el área comercial se plasmó en la aplicación de la “Administración centrada en el cliente” para definir los procesos. … Esto exigía reducir costos y al mismo tiempo centrar los esfuerzos para ganar en las ventas.”

Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Estrategia Política, Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. pp. 105–116. ISBN 950-537-146-2.

Estrategia Política: Gobernación de San Juan, Argentina realizada por M&T.

“Podemos hablar de seis órdenes en la estructura social sanjuanina, el económico, el político, el militar, el religioso, el social y el familiar, y parte del trabajo consistió en analizar cómo se articulaban estos seis órdenes en la estructura social sanjuanina. En lo que hace al orden económico en San Juan, la economía tradicional está orientada a la monoproducción, con una escasa incorporación de tecnologías de avanzada. La minería y la industria aparecen como elementos marginales a la estructura, dado que el sanjuanino, más allá de lo que señalen las estadísticas, se siente sobre todas las cosas identificado con la vitivinicultura.”

(…) “La publicidad oficial, a no ser que sea realmente sutil, tiene un efecto paradojal y se vuelve contra el propio gobierno, porque no resulta creíble. Frente a este planteo, mientras el candidato radical dedicaba páginas en los periódicos como parte de su campaña, el Dr. Gómez Centurión decidió no valerse de los anuncios publicitarios más que para hacer públicos sus debates y exposiciones.” Prague3 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through these sources, the only one that mentions "Unicist", whether as a theory or as an institute is the Buenos Aires Herald excerpt. This excerpt is also suspicious because of the number of grammatical errors in the text, including errors that are not particularly likely typos, and strange capitalization decisions. I'm thus a bit skeptical that this content was actually published in the Herald–moreover, if the claims in the excerpt are true, it is quite frankly astonishing that no other paper would have reported on them. If "Future research and scenario building" had really produced a breakthrough that "rendered other systems obsolete", we would expect to see other publications reporting on this as well.

The other sources do not mention the subject at all; exactly one of the sources mentions Peter (well, Pedro) Belohlavek in passing as the "president of M&T". Now right off the bat it is original research to conclude that just on the basis of Belohlavek's involvement that the Unicist Research Institute's theories are employed, and it's even more tenuous to claim that just because M&T was involved that Peter Belohlavek was involved, which means that these sources are not particularly useful for establishing the subject's notability. Additionally it's left unclear what "M&T" is. If this refers to M&T Bank, which would be a reasonable financial partner for AmEx and Diner's Club, then there doesn't appear to be any evidence other than this article that Belohlavek was ever employed there. At this time, I can't say that I've seen any evidence that actually establishes the subject's notability, and remain concerned that this is a hoax. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help you to receive a scanned copy of the Buenos Aires Herald article? Please tell me where I can send it. I always presume good faith on both sides and I will do my part with pleasure to provide all the information that you request and ask. I retyped myself the quotes from the article that you asked, so I apologize beforehand if I made any mistakes, with capitalization that you mentioned, which I have not noticed. I believe there is no issue to consider an article for deletion based on this. I can offer you to send a scanned copy of the full article, I have a photocopy reduction with me that I used which can solve this easily.

M&T was the previous nomination of the Group as it is particularly specified on the right of the article that you could see (see Formerly), which stands for Management and Technology Consulting Group. If it is part of Wikipedia´s policies, I will be glad to send you all the articles scanned if you want for you to verify all the information in which this appears. The Institute was founded by the Slovakian Peter Belohlavek, and, as it is stated on the right box, there were 2 previous nominations to the group: M&T and ASOU. These sources do mention M&T as also mention the works developed in the social and institutional fields that are mentioned and related to the article (see article). I believe there is no issue in this fact, since the “Formerly” concept is of common use in Wikipedia and the information is open and provided. But if there is a problem with this, I would appreciate your advice to proceed, following the specific guidelines. I can send you additional articles as well.

I trust this will clarify your doubts. But if necessary, please let me know if sending you a copy of the article/s will be useful, sending other articles, or sending a copy of the organization´s open list of clients could be of help. If necessary, let me know which are the guidelines for doing so since I have never been asked for doing this before, and the image format that is accepted. If you have any suggestions on possible changes or additions, please let me know. I appreciate your help. Thank you very much. Prague3 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A scanned copy of the Herald would be good for establishing that source's verifiability, yes. I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for submitting scans of coverage in sources for verification purposes, and WP:OFFLINE doesn't seem to mention anything; personally I'd be fine evaluating documents sent either over email or hosted on a third party site. If possible, it would also be good if you could provide sources confirming that M&T and Unicist are the same organization, as that appears to be an uncited claim in the current revision of the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending you the scanned copy of the article from the Buenos Aires Herald and also an access where the connection between M&T and Unicist can be verified. I count this will be useful. I am sharing them below. I hope the location of the pdf is fine to verify the information, but if you prefer some other place, please let me know. Thank you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Z62DPcx5HYGqWl1JRQFomg3xv_Rp-U2/view?usp=sharing

https://www.unicist.org/milestones.php Prague3 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these sources, I believe they establish that the coverage is indeed legitimate, and the Herald article in particular is a strong piece of evidence in favor of notability. However, it's unclear to me based on the excerpts provided of the other pieces of coverage that they provide sufficiently in-depth coverage of M&T/Unicist to meet WP:ORGCRITE, and thus the notability of the subject is still a borderline case in my view at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am glad that you could access and confirm the sources I have sent you. I understand your interest in good quality articles and I hope to be doing the best to arrive to a good result. Following your request, I am sending you a scanned copy of other sources I have here, please I would appreciate if you could confirm they are helpful. I appreciate your help and guidance and any suggestion to fulfill the next steps to come to a solution.

Additional sources:

"Peter Belohlavek & The Unicist Research Institute". Segundo Congreso Nacional: Argentina necesita emprendedores. Nº 91, p.9: Ediciones Mañana Profesional. August–September 2005.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ONY-tWTqOzl7HVrnym4ONBvXYNE6idzP/view?usp=sharing

Ferro, María Laura (2003-01-05). Teoría Unicista: Otra manera de aprender - “Acá todo el mundo quiere ser Dios y, entonces, es nada”. Revista Nueva. Nº 599, p. 12: Agrupación Diarios del Interior.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17TLibYvaUb-VJyAYwJLs85Y3gp1l-O31/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ljBa8UpwjR0gG5i_hv3_zefDWD3o1H0U/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16UO08XUayocQyvXw8-jLwc-kUtwRtAE9/view?usp=sharing

Gesualdi, Patricia (2013-05-06). "Refutación a la Teoría de la Demanda". Mañana University. p. 22-23: Ediciones Mañana Profesional.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FCkStwA2Jkdq2BKwFvW_NZdUKSiNpquC/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oPv1bz0MAeA3noCfD2YqAhswH1mkze4D/view?usp=sharing

"Brasil: Sanear para así crecer". El Cronista Comercial. p.9. 1990-03-18

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VQAbHuTPUzp43Mum-7Lf6ynCGjG4TvSo/view?usp=sharing

"Espíritu deportivo y eficacia profesional". Mañana Profesional. Investigación. p.30: Ediciones Mañana Profesional. Nº 84, Nov–Dec 2003.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L9emGkFOcyOFFcEyydZvihEqVUxEL3T-/view?usp=sharing

Thank you. Prague3 (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that some of these sources are not reliable. In particular Mañana Profesional appears to be an industry publisher that offers publication services to other companies. While they do appear to also have their own publication, the "Quienes somos" link on their website is broken and I wasn't able to find information elsewhere. My search for Revista Nueva led me to here, a website that doesn't list any editorial information and doesn't even have an "about us" section, and which may or may not even be the same publication as you cited. The El Cronista source is reliable, but only discusses Belohlavek, not the Unicist Institute. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending you the required information. Following your request, I am sharing additional sources to the Buenos Aires Herald, La Nación, Ámbito Financiero, La Razón, etc. that have been previously confirmed, adding 2 additional reliable sources (Cronista and El Dia) that I hope will satisfy your request and I am also sending you information about the Nueva Magazine in Argentina that you needed to confirm.

-Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.

-“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31.

-“Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28.

-Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88

- Ferro, María Laura (2003-01-05). Teoría Unicista: Otra manera de aprender - “Acá todo el mundo quiere ser Dios y, entonces, es nada”. Revista Nueva. Nº 599, p. 12: Agrupación Diarios del Interior.

Revista Nueva is a known Sunday Magazine that comes together with the newspaper in Argentina in the cities of Cordoba, Santa Fe, Rosario, Misiones, Corrientes, Entre Rios, La Plata, San Nicolas, Junin, Bahia Blanca, Neuquen, Rio Negro, Mendoza, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucuman and Santiago del Estero. You can find the name of the newspapers in the footer of its website:

http://nueva.com.ar/ and you can also find an “about us” link in the menu under the title: “sobre nueva”.

As far as I know, the Manana Profesional magazine was sold some years ago, in one of the Argentinian crises.

I am providing additional reliable secondary sources to add to the previous ones:

Brea, José Luis. “El consumidor exige funcionalidad a los productos”. Cronista Comercial, p. 31, 1989-7-20.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QcMq8o_7B20F6AdkjimahiwPA9zP0MVH/view?usp=sharing

"Destacan la estabilidad del Uruguay en América Latina". El Día. Información Nacional, p. 7, 1989-5-16.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11isntHR7duQFUaSPNpjpsgUjI_cvFg3h/view?usp=sharing

I appreciate your help and guidance in this process to reach a solution. Thank you very much. Prague3 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing the Revista Nueva source, I'm not sure its coverage can be considered independent. It is mostly an interview with Belohlavek about his various opinions–while it includes a separate section about the Unicist Institute, in that section it explicitly quotes the institute's website. Additionally, I'm still a little puzzled by the relationship between M&T and Unicist. Between this source, which extensively quotes one Marcela Gonzalez Arcila as the director of M&T, as well as other vague claims that Unicist was an "unincorporated association" and that it was "spun off" from M&T, I'm not sure it's accurate to conclude that coverage of M&T is equivalent to coverage of the Unicist Research Institute for notability purposes. Thus, while I believe there's substantial evidence that the subject exists, the nature of the coverage's focus on Belohlavek and M&T as opposed to on the subject itself with the name "Unicist Research Institute" leaves me uncertain as to whether the subject meets WP:NORG. I would appreciate the opinions of more editors at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending you additional information to answer your requests. The Nueva magazine is an independent, reliable source. As specified in the summary of the magazine, Nueva is property of ADI (Agrupación Diarios del Interior). This ensures the complete independence of the source.

The connection between M&T and Unicist is explicitly stated in the “Formerly” section of the Infobox in the article as well as in the source provided. I believe there is no issue in this fact, since the “Formerly” concept is of common use in Wikipedia and the information is open and provided. I hope this is helpful to reach a solution. Thank you for your help. Prague3 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can someone sum this all up? Right now, it's impossible to discern precise points. And I'd like to know said points before throwing my gloves into the ring. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there's a lot of borderline trivial or unreliable coverage that has been presented. The sources that mention "Unicist Research Institute" directly (other than the Unicist Research Institute Website) are this article attributed to Mañana Profesional, and an interview with Peter Belohlavek in Revista Nueva (split across three scans, [62], [63], [64], with most of the coverage of the research institute being in a section of the third scan). Additional sources either mention "Unicist Theory" or purport to publish research associated with the Institute (although they give minimal coverage of the Institute itself): Buenos Aires Herald, Mañana University ([65], [66]), and Mañana Profesional ([67]). Further coverage has been provided of a firm called Management and Technology, with which Belohlavek was at one point heavily involved, and which has an unclear relationship with the Unicist Research Institute (The Unicist Research Institute website has an attempt at explanation [68], but it remains unclear whether notability should be inherited across the two organizations) in El Cronista, [69], as well as other sources whose scans I did not request because their coverage clearly did not mention the Unicist Research Institute based on excerpts provided above (“Reveladora encuesta de American Express". La Nación. Economía y Finanzas, p. 15. 1988-10-31., “Avanzan los gastos por viajes y representación en Argentina". Ámbito Financiero. p. 7. 1988-10-28., Gran expansión empresaria en los gastos de viaje y representación, La Razón, Section Economía, p. 7, 31-10-88, Luchia-Puig, Cecilia (1989). Claves en la conducción empresaria. Ediciones Macchi. ISBN 950-537-146-2., "Radiografía del caso Renault". Noticias. Section: Empresas, p. 58-59: Editorial Perfil. 1990-01-14.). All in all, my current stance is that there isn't enough coverage of the Unicist Research Institute itself to demonstrate notability: what we have is lots of coverage of another organization with unclear affiliation, and a handful of interviews with the director of the Institute that do not provide significant coverage of the institute. I think that the sources which mention the Unicist Research Institute fall significantly short of WP:ORGCRITE–the only path to notability that I see is if we judge that coverage of M&T should be considered equivalent to coverage of the subject, which I do not think is justifiable based on currently available evidence. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The strong overlap of sources between this and the article on Belohlavek makes clear that this institute is not independently notable from Belohlavek. We should not have two separate-looking articles that are really on the same subject. If we are to have one article (and whether we should have even that much is unclear) it should be on Belohlavek rather than his corporate shell. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence to keep the article. Based on your request, I reviewed the wikipedia guidelines and the sources so as to provide you with the necessary information for your convenience. The sources provided follow the Wikipedia guidelines, they provide significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. You can see some of the main national newspapers as sources that can be accessed in the public library archives and that have been also provided for verification.

The “formerly” concept that is used in the Infobox is of common use in Wikipedia. For this particular case, I looked for the information, and the relation between M&T and The Unicist Research Institute to confirm it and I verified that it is open and public. Looking for additional information, to answer your request, I found this information in the website as part of the history of the institute confirming the information that is already in the article.

Please find the relation between M&T and The Unicist Research Institute in its history: https://www.unicist.org/history.php

(Just on a side note, in this history page that I found, together with this information, you will also find a list of clients and an access to the unicist school with more than 100,000 followers in 56 countries.)

Since the previous sources that had been provided during the last 2 weeks have national coverage and can be verified as reliable secondary sources, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I hope that this information is useful to confirm the relation and keep this article. I count with your help to solve this soon. I appreciate your guidance. Prague3 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prague3: TL;DR. Please see Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and Wikipedia:Wall of text. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability as none provide in-depth information on the organization itself. Most mention their involvement in various studies or research work but that is not sufficient for establishing notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ORG; significant RS coverage not found. Passing mentions do not establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. As an aside I'd like to note that posting huge walls of text (especially when not in English) is not a very effective way of presenting an argument. Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Belohlavek

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable pseudoscience peddler, has a h-index of 4 despite having founded a "research institute", does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBIO. Nominating alongside The Unicist Research Institute. More in-depth explanation of notability problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unicist Research Institute _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Arguments: Notability - This 2012 article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Additional references have also been added. It follows the general notability guidelines that apply, including multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Bridge2007 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Most of the sourcing I could find like this aren't independent, and others are more passing mention. Even from a WP:FRINGEBLP standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to really write up an article with in terms of WP:PARITY-based notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a secondary note that after the relisting and wading through through Bridge2007's text below, but the substance of my previous !vote doesn't really change. There hasn't really been a case made for GNG yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. For academic WP:FRINGE cases, WP:BIO/WP:GNG are the main operative guidelines. There is too little coverage in independent mainstream reliable sources in this case to pass WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability – Independent and reliable sources available offline: This article has offline sources that are available for consultation and can be shared. From what I understand from the guidelines: “There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online.”

These are independent reliable sources of very well-known newspapers and magazines of national reach that are available for this subject. This article meets the primary criteria, with the required components of: significant coverage, multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.

They are independent and reliable secondary sources from Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. From the research on the subject and the global discussion, I understand that the language of these sources is not an issue to consider the article for deletion, so I am sharing these sources, so they can be verified. If required, I can offer a translation.

Required Sources: Available

In response to the request, I am sharing the mentioned offline references, transcribing some of the excerpts from the news found in Folha de Sao Paulo (Brasil), Buenos Aires Herald, El Cronista Comercial, Segundo Congreso Nacional Argentina necesita emprendedores and El Dia Journal from Uruguay (others are also available), that I trust can be useful to verify the sources.

I am sharing some of them in their original language. If necessary, I can also offer to share a translation of the available sources:

• Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.

• Mañana Professional. “Peter Belohlavek & The Unicist Research Institute”, Segundo Congreso Nacional: Argentina necesita emprendedores (August–September 2005) p.9.

• Folha de São Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.

• Brasil: Sanear para así crecer. El Cronista Comercial. p.9. 1990-03-18.

• “Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, Uruguay, p.14, 1989-08-18

• Landeyro, Norberto. Brasil buscó un planteo nuevo: la seguridad. El Cronista p.15. 1989-11-26

Johnson, Peter (2004-12-16). "Argentina faces 20-year transition period". Buenos Aires Herald.

Argentina faces 20-year transition period (By Peter Johnson, Herald Staff)

Future Research and scenario building is a little known area of research in Argentina, yet it has produced a breakthrough that makes other systems obsolete.

An event held in Buenos Aires recently mapped out the forecast for the next 20 years based on this new approach, showing that there will be a period where diplomacy prevails over wars and those countries that have managed to organize the State independently from government will have natural advantages due to the consistency of their diplomatic efforts.

The methodology on which this approach to the construction of future scenarios is based is the Unicist Theory of Evolution developed by Peter Belohlavek, that enables one to build the drivers that determine the evolution of individuals, institutions and cultures.

The World in the Next 20 Years

During the event the outstanding issue was the strength that the national interest has as a driver of this period that is dominated by globalization and diplomacy. The power of the national interest determines the capacity of cultures to be mutually influential. Heavy emphasis was places on the fact that the USA and Europe aim to be the prime influential forces in the world.

Globalization becomes sustainable where it is upheld by the national interest. Where this support is lacking globalization is not sustainable.

Diplomacy implies an integration of cooperation and competition. Where there is a past that has included cooperation then it becomes a natural process. Cooperating in diversity is the European Approach. Where a historical concept that draws these together is lacking integration tends to function as an alliance and not as institutionalization.

The power of dissuasion becomes an important driver in this period that can be called post-perestroika. Dissuasion takes on all possible forms: military, cultural, religious, economic and ideological.

The power of dissuasion enables competition. Competition in the world during this period becomes almost cut throat due to the need of developed countries to maintain their levels of employment in the face of the encroaching globalization and the new technologies.

The fight for the vital space becomes global as the developed countries need wider spaces to be implanted that will sustain their levels of employment. Diplomacy will therefore become the main driver in this period that will be marked by an infinite number of negotiations and renegotiations.

Terrorism therefore, whether military, economic or drug related is forbidden in this period. Counties breaking the rules will be severely sanctioned but always within the framework of each participant’s national interest.

Argentina in the Next 20 Years

The next 20 years for Argentina as seen as a transition period. At which point Belohlavek recalled a famous Chinese curse: “May you live through a transition period”.

The foreign debt, the tenuous separation between government and State, and the loss of its natural role of State administration has generated a dysfunctionality in its social and economic behavior with the consequent difficulties in the political arena.

The transition will begin with the modification of a vertically-aligned education model focused on teaching, to one more focused on learning. As happened in Spain which needed 40 years to develop its current model from changes to its educational model, Argentina will need more than a generation to build a base that will enable sustained and sustainable growth. Growth based on consumption and investment incentives will be all the rage in this period, as they are the natural defences to stimulate employment.

Argentina has opted for a State model that corresponds to shrinking cultures or a country with shrinking sectors, which begins to give it consistency beyond the difficulties generated by actions by individual government officials rather than actions by the State as an institution.

People will keep on believing, as a result of a culture of plenty, that wealth is what one has and not what one produces, which will lead to an attitude where wealth is viewed as illegitimate as it is considered appropriation and not production.

Technologies adopted in this period will be those producing immediate results, those producing profits in the short term. Work, giving the structural lack of proactive international production and expansion, will be linked to employment rather than added value. This can only lead to high levels of employment protection.

This period should also see the emergence of new leaders that will generate policies to increase productivity after having overcome the transition period of beginning to pay off the foreign debt.

Economic culture will be based on cost advantages rather than added value and the culture will tend to operate as a free trade zone open to the influential cultures of the world.

The installation of equality of rights, which precedes that of equality of opportunities, will begin to take place slowly and heavily influenced by developed countries and the leading countries in the region (Chile and Brazil).

Corruption will continue to drop as the system becomes more efficient and the separation of individuals from institutions increases.

The transition of the next 20 years is a massive adaptation process and implies that people will have to pay a price and that governments in the period will have to compensate for this.

Until now the construction of future scenarios had been based on consensus. The Unicist methodology makes them obsolete as it is structured on the drivers that are the result of the concepts that underlie every process of evolution. It is a qualitative jump. Starting with the drivers it is possible to build multiple operational alternative and agreed on courses of action that can influence the future.

Mañana Professional. “Peter Belohlavek & The Unicist Research Institute”, Segundo Congreso Nacional: Argentina necesita emprendedores (August–September 2005) p.23.

“Peter Belohlavek nació en Zilina, Eslovaquia en 1944. Es el autor de la teoría unicista de evolución y los modelos unicistas aplicados a la prospectiva y la estrategia en los campos social, institucional e individual. Fundador de The Unicist Research Insitute viene construyendo, desde hace más de 30 años, los escenarios nacionales e internacionales con notable acierto.”

(…)“Belohlavek es autor de la Teoría de Evolución Unicista que se basa en el descubrimiento de la estructura de conceptos. (…) Para el autor de la Teoría Unicista de Evolución, el vuelo de un negocio depende de la ética que tiene ese negocio. Compuesta por aspectos funcionales, ideológicos y morales, la ética y la moral apuntan a la convivencia.” p. 9.

Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.

Brasil já lidera a América Latina e dentro de dez anos será uma das grandes potências mundiais. Essa é a opinião do consultor Pedro Belohlavek depois de dois anos de contatos e trabalho no país.

Numa entrevista à Folha por telefone de Buenos Aires, o consultor disse que para consolidar seu crescimento são necessárias duas ações principais – a abertura para mercados competitivos e mais interessantes para a exportação e um programa educacional que resolva de uma vez por todas as carências dessa área.

Belohlavek mostra um gosto por opiniões polémicas. Para ele, Sarney foi “talvez o melhor governo de transição que o Brasil poderia ter”. No seu entender foi a primeira vez que o país separou de uma forma mais clara “a economia da política”. A iniciativa privada atuando sem o apoio do governo era algo pouco experimentado na história brasileira”, disse o autor de “Estratégia – A arte do êxito”.

Belohlavek afirma que a sociedade brasileira favorece o crescimento econômico. Segundo ele, uma base estrutural forte permite a mudança nas ações com uma velocidade de adaptação social bastante rápida. “No Brasil se desenvolveu uma mentalidade industrial”, garante o consultor. Segundo ele, isso coloca o país numa situação de vantagem em relação à maioria dos seus vizinhos na América do Sul.

O sistema financeiro, o setor de exportação e a informática são três áreas que segundo Belohlavek sofrerão grandes transformações nos próximos anos no Brasil. Análises que fazem parte de um estudo sobre os próximos dez anos do país enviado durante a campanha eleitoral para cinco candidatos à Presidência – Fernando Collor, Lula, Leonel Brizola, Mario Covas e Paulo Maluí.

Depois de percorrer muitos países, o consultor discorda enfaticamente do mito do brasileiro preguiçoso e mais interessado na fruição do lazer. Segundo ele, na América Latina, apenas os executivos do Chile trabalham mais horas que seus colegas brasileiros, conclusão a que chegou depois de um estudo particular.

Outra característica que afirma ter encontrado no Brasil é a vocação para o trabalho em equipe. Essa última conclusão se apóia também na observação do futebol “Presto muita atenção aos esportes nacionais dos países que estudo. Geralmente é uma amostra muito relevadora do comportamento”, afirmou Belohlavek.

Ele disse ter encontrado a vocação expansiva da economia brasileira também ali. “O futebol” brasileiro se apoia muito num jogo de equipe e de ataque enquanto o argentino tem uma retranca muito forte e precisa de estreias como Maradona para dar certo”.

Brasil: Sanear para así crecer, El Cronista Comercial, p.9., 1990-03-18.

Opina un especialista

Brasil: “Sanear para así crecer”

(…) Recién llegado de Brasil, fue consultado por El Cronista, Pedro Belohlavek, especialista en América Latina y titular de M&T, con filiales en ambos países.

“Luego de una transición liberal en la cual se dejó que la economía se independizara de la política, Brasil acaba de entrar en una etapa dirigista que conducirá hacia una profundización de esa independencia. Lo importante es que, si bien todas las medidas son dirigistas, la meta es una economía libre”, sostiene.

“Hay que tener en claro que es un plan que juega a más, es un plan de crecimiento, no de achique de la economía del país. La idea central es hacer un saneamiento de la economía para crecer en forma inmediata”, dice. “La prueba de ello es que el plan de privatizaciones, que es virtualmente total -sólo permanecerán en manos del Estado Petrobras y Banco de Brasil – se basa en la venta de las empresas al capital mayoritariamente nacional.

Eso, a juicio de Belohlavek, es una de las características que lo diferencian del plan argentino, que privatiza en base a capitalización de deuda. “Otra diferencia es que el de Brasil es un plan dirigista, no realizó moratoria de la deuda interna y abarcó de golpe lo económico, lo social y lo político. El plan argentino se hace a pedacitos, por lo cual nunca se termina de establecer la seguridad jurídica”, sostiene.

Pero agrega que “la Argentina no podía haber hecho un plan así, porque el estado de ambos países es sustancialmente diferente. Un dato interesante es que 84 por ciento del PBI de la Argentina se destina al mercado interno, mientras que en Brasil es menos del 60 por ciento.

En cuanto a su opinión acerca de que el plan brasileño conduce al crecimiento, Belohlavek lo corrobora cuando afirma que “continúa la orientación exportadora”, se privatiza para el capital local, no se achica el sistema financiero, y al indexarse mutuamente precios y salarios, las pérdidas son pequeñas, con excepción de las grandes disponibilidades.

Señala que la Argentina va a tener una excelente oportunidad exportadora, en el marco de la integración, si el plan y su criterio aperturista funcionan. Otras consecuencias podrían ser una reestructuración del sistema financiero, una baja en la Bolsa, al nominativizarse el capital, y el riesgo de que la economía se dolarice. La clave del éxito o el fracaso de este plan es el grado de confianza que el gobierno logre por parte de los empresarios y en general de todos los brasileños”.

“La credibilidad del modelo va a hacer que Brasil dispare hacia adelante”, agrega Belohlavek. “Este es un plan que está en el límite de la audacia por atacar a todas las variables simultáneamente. Hoy Brasil es la octava economía del mundo. Puedo asegurar que dentro de 10 años va a haber adelantado posiciones”, sostiene.

Belohlavek considera que los medios argentinos se equivocaron en considerar que la alta inflación brasileña era hiperinflación, “porque la híper se da cuando a un país se le escapa la inflación, pierde el control de la economía. Los brasileños tuvieron una economía indexada, que es algo diferente. Pero la consecuencia de este plan, por supuesto, va a ser una disminución de la inflación. Otro aspecto remarcable es que, de aquí en más, la palabra “productividad” va a escribirse con mayúscula y letras doradas”.

Landeyro, Norberto. Brasil buscó un planteo nuevo: la seguridad. El Cronista p.15. 1989-11-26

(This source is proposed to be added to the article in the application of the models. One excerpt from the first lines of a full one-page offline newspaper article of national coverage in Argentina, El Cronista, is provided below. A transcription of the full article can be provided if necessary.)

“Brasil buscó un planteo nuevo: la seguridad. La definición corresponde a Belohlavek, modelador de escenarios y estrategias, que en larga charla con El Cronista analizó la realidad y el futuro del mayor país de América del Sur, a la luz de los resultados de la primera vuelta electoral. Quiénes son y que representan los dos candidatos que definirán el pleito en diciembre próximo. Reflexiones sobre Uruguay – celebra hoy sus comicios – y Chile que lo hará en diciembre.”

“Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, p.14, 1989-08-18

(This source is proposed to be added to the article. One excerpt from this offline newspaper article of national coverage in Uruguay is shared below.)

Insertado el estudio de nuestro país dentro del análisis mundial, señaló que todas las sociedades evolucionan tratando de satisfacer sus necesidades, de tal modo que cuando ellas están satisfechas, se ha llegado al techo, del cual se va a bajar, porque en ese momento comienza la corrupción.

De ese modo fue como en Uruguay se pasó, en determinado momento, luego de un auge económico, a un gran distribucionismo, al que siguió la corrupción del mismo, el deterioro del sistema, a un planteo de izquierda, a un planteo de derecha, hasta que se llegó al piso. Y eso es absolutamente lógico y no podía haber sucedido de otra manera, añadió.

En cuanto al escenario futuro de Uruguay se refirió a él comparándolo con la situación de un americano y un japonés que van a la selva y aparece un león. Entonces explica, el japonés se saca las botas y se pone unas zapatillas. A lo que el americano le pregunta, piensa que así va a correr más que el león. “No más que el león- es la respuesta- pero sí más que tú.” De ese modo tiene que correr Uruguay más que los que están a su lado, explicó Belohlavek.

Analizó durante su charla una serie de conceptos tales como ideología, tipos de sociedades, familia, pobreza, mercado, proyectos nacionales y comparó especialmente a la sociedad uruguaya con la argentina y la brasileña.

Y dedujo de ello que Uruguay tiene que aceptar sus propios valores y sus propias limitaciones.

Conectando esta afirmación a lo que para él significa subdesarrollo, explicó que éste no es más que querer ser lo que no se es. Definió así a nuestro país como el más coherente de América Latina y explicó que hasta ahora no había tenido marketing porque no había necesitado del mismo.

Pero ahora, añadió, sólo se desarrollan las sociedades que se expanden, no las que se contraen.

Refiriéndose a la teoría de su método de análisis tridimensional, explicó que es una síntesis del pensamiento oriental y el occidental, ya que el primero tiene una concepción del Universo como una unidad y el otro, dual. “El oriental integra, el occidental divide”, dijo. Las cosas son, y después se analizan, continuó explicando. Y ejemplificó diciendo que: “el árbol es anterior a la Botánica”.

Luego de un profundo análisis de otros factores de la evolución de las sociedades, el Dr. Belohlavek finalizó exponiendo la idea de que en todos los órdenes de la vida, lo que uno gana lo pierde el otro. Por lo que Uruguay está frente a la disyuntiva de jugar el papel de Latinoamérica – “donde es ganador frente a la inestabilidad de los demás” – o sigue tratando de mantenerse en el primer mundo, al que perteneció y ya no pertenece.

“Hay, por lo tanto, que salir a vender, no a Argentina o Brasil, sino afuera y averiguar cómo es el comprador extranjero y qué necesita, porque es el que va a comprar las artesanías uruguayas.” Bridge2007 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would it be possible for you to provide scans of these written sources to establish that they are legitimate, especially the coverage in the Buenos Aires Herald and El Cronista as these articles appear to provide the most significant coverage? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I have scanned the required sources for your verification. Notice that you will also find the name translated into Spanish in the region, even though he has a Slovak name. I hope the format of the files is fine to read, if not, please specify so I share them again. I trust this will be helpful.

Please find the links below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hdgdj86SphTUTbGHrOcx8zk7x60J1Iva/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UNZIfCLdeOaQtxi2vfda3_JmNzEcQ7on/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aIGjKhEhkn5kmEsGH6qIvILwu23gAU9t/view?usp=sharing

Bridge2007 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for providing these sources, they establish that the reported quotes are indeed real. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that they provide the in-depth coverage of Belohlavek necessary to demonstrate notability. While the interviews approach Belohlavek as an expert on the subject, there is no actual coverage of Belohlavek himself beyond very brief introductions, which is ultimately what is needed to demonstrate notability–the content of the interviews is focused on current events in Brazil. The Herald article may be a bit more useful toward establishing notability, as it discusses to some extent the research that Belohlavek is associated with at the Unicist Institute, but even that seems a bit borderline. At this time, I'd like to hear from other editors (but could also be swayed by additional in-depth coverage of Belohlavek). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Following your request, I am providing additional in-depth coverage. I hope these additional sources fulfill your request. Please let me know.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tN5NPBFdVYVc2lWXJepKq7Cox8yT5eo7/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zsrnXyIXBSSQWvVemjPLWUk4uKS17CsW/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16miW9d5_-31NKG2U61aVymPO7HeYuiCl/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yCmCizcQrdgsshKhxGJamRIJlsgJiWFu/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PxsMSe5gne6S3f4TaFyPgAqKhfJ7JNsz/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SwIDd6pT8cVH6XDsgm7gKhs6x9hHI8Cc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QxBLcEFN2StqtI6AZMUWb3UT16U4E3E/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I0SObczvIuT_3OBUUBOyn9118oxkFfrF/view?usp=sharing

Thank you. Bridge2007 (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you please list the sources next to the files? Not all of them have it marked in the image. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I am including the additional sources (full articles) that have been added with an access to their scanned copies below:

3-page article Revista Nueva:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tN5NPBFdVYVc2lWXJepKq7Cox8yT5eo7/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zsrnXyIXBSSQWvVemjPLWUk4uKS17CsW/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16miW9d5_-31NKG2U61aVymPO7HeYuiCl/view?usp=sharing

^[3]

2 page-article Revista Mañana University:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yCmCizcQrdgsshKhxGJamRIJlsgJiWFu/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PxsMSe5gne6S3f4TaFyPgAqKhfJ7JNsz/view?usp=sharing

^[4]

Folha de Sao Paulo, Brazil:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SwIDd6pT8cVH6XDsgm7gKhs6x9hHI8Cc/view?usp=sharing

^[5]

El Día, Uruguay:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QxBLcEFN2StqtI6AZMUWb3UT16U4E3E/view?usp=sharing

^[6]

O Estado de São Paulo, Brazil:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I0SObczvIuT_3OBUUBOyn9118oxkFfrF/view?usp=sharing

^[7]

^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jake-noch-pro-music-rights
^ https://www.instagram.com/p/Bl5u2c1gXMY/
^ Ferro, María Laura (2003-01-05). "Teoría Unicista: Otra manera de aprender - Acá todo el mundo quiere ser Dios y, entonces, es nada". Revista Nueva. Nº 599, p. 12: Agrupación Diarios del Interior.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^ Gesualdi, Patricia (2013-05-06). "Refutación a la Teoría de la Demanda". Mañana University. p. 22,23: Ediciones Mañana Profesional.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^ Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.
^ "Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos". El Día. Información Nacional, Uruguay, p.14. 1989-08-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^ "Economista prevê mudança nos anos 90". O Estado de São Paulo. Economia, p.4. 1990-04-05.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

Thank you. Bridge2007 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Bridge2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time reading the El Día and Folha de São Paulo sources due to the poor image quality–would it be possible to provide higher resolution images?

As for the other sources, is there any authorship information for the article in O Estado de São Paulo? The piece appears to exclusively discuss Belohlavek's book (which based on citation searches does not appear to have made a significant impact in its field), and I'm concerned that it could actually be an advertisement. Additionally, I'm concerned about the reliability of Mañana University and Revista Nueva as I can't seem to find any information about the former and searching for the latter led me to this site, which provides no editorial information and may not even be the same publication. If the coverage in El Día and Folha is solid it may not end up mattering, as those sources are definitely reliable, but as I stated previously the image quality is very poor and makes it difficult to read and evaluate the depth of coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fortunately, I can resend you now the information with a better image in the case of El Dia and a closer one in the case of Folha de Sao Paulo, as well as the full texts I typed for you to follow just in case. As you mention to focus on the main newspapers, besides all the other media that cover this, I count that Buenos Aires Herald, Cronista, El Día (Uruguay), Folha de Sao Paulo (Brasil), are very well known and reliable secondary sources.

( As a side note the Nueva Review is an Argentine magazine that is distributed with the Sunday Newspaper in some of the main cities in Argentina. http://nueva.com.ar/portal/sobre )

For your convenience, I could find specifically what you requested, a new high definition copy of the El Dia article that I had already sent you (see link for image 1). I am also sending you 2 other images for 2 articles published in the prestigious newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo (the first, a better quality image and the second, an additional one). In this case, I found out that the library in Brazil has a better copy, of course, but I believe we can manage with the one we have. Of course if you need the one from the library, I am not in Brazil, but I will be able to get it as well. I believe since all the information is provided, you will be able to verify the sources perfectly.

1) “Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, p.14, 1989-08-18

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JDCb5MsRpc1CyLbg86TLoaryaHrraCJX/view?usp=sharing

2) Folha de S.Paulo. “Brasil tem tudo para ser uma potência”. March 12, 1990, p. 2 Negócios.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16eZA__b-xlusMP3GY4zc-bRWeBT7Spn0/view?usp=sharing

3) Rangel, Teresa. “Processo levará dez anos, diz o consultor”. Folha de S.Paulo. August 31, 1990, p. 2. Economia.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rORa1Z7nkRhQxiXf50HTk3kW8cwTj-NC/view?usp=sharing

Additionally, I took the trouble of transcribing all the information that is already in the images below.

I trust this will satisfy your request to solve this very soon.

Thank you for your help.

1) “Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos”. Section: Información Nacional, Diario El Día, Montevideo, p.14, 1989-08-18

Los pueblos cambian gobiernos, y no gobiernos a los pueblos

“Galileo murió por haberle dicho a la gente que el Universo era distinto a lo que la gente creía.”

“Eso mismo es lo que pasa con los pueblos. Si todos creemos que el gobierno va a cumplir, vamos a trabajar y hacer algo. Pero lo vamos a hacer nosotros, no el gobierno. En cambio si pasa lo contrario, no vamos a hacer nada. Y los que no vamos a hacer nada vamos a ser nosotros y no el gobierno”. Con estos conceptos revolucionarios e introductores comenzó la conferencia el Dr. Pedro Belohlavek al cierre del fórum: “El marketing y el Uruguay”.

Autor del método “Teoría del análisis tridimensional”, al que él califica de casi “una mala palabra”, por su extensión, se refirió al mismo explicando que se trata del estudio de las sociedades a través de sus componentes fundamentales y de la evolución de los mismos.