Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikanreed (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 20 September 2018 (Nominate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 19 September 21 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regality theory

Regality theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to have been created by the author of the theory, and while published in academic journals, they're ones of low impact, and in particular, this subject doesn't seem to have any other authors cite or reference it. I believe it's a pet theory, not really approaching the level of established utility that warrants encyclopedia coverage. Upon further consideration: I think WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline. i kan reed (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not necessarily fringe, but it is original research. Fog's papers have few/zero citations and I can't find anyone else discussing the topic, at least not under that name. Until the work is assessed by independent scholars, it doesn't belong here. WP:GNG is not met as the only in-depth source is Fog thus failing the requirement for multiple in-depth sources. SpinningSpark 22:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. "original research" is defined as material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The article is citing four primary sources and two secondary sources dealing with precisely the theory of the article, and many other sources dealing with closely related theories. All the sources are in well respected peer-reviewed journals or by well reputed book publishers. The article is serious, and not promotional. The work has indeed been assessed by independent scholars, cited in the article, who find it important and useful. Agnerf (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at it? I think this is a very interesting theory and it tells a lot about the world today. It has a lot of applications that are documented with many examples from around the world. This is more important in my opinion than counting references. I think it should stay on wikipedia. Fabio Donatini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.216.31 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have looked at it. I don't think my concerns above reflect an absence of understanding, just concern about the encyclopedic value of it. There's a lot of papers out there that posit interesting theory, with some kind of archetypal analysis. Such conventions become things that should be documented in an encyclopedia when they are either cited frequently and reused broadly within a field, or become part of pop-psychology and are used widely within lay discussion. i kan reed (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I have added six more secondary references. I hope this satisfies your requirements. Thanks for relisting. Agnerf (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck your keep. You can't !vote twice. SpinningSpark 13:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is challenging the quality of your sources (although the recently added item from WikiWikiWeb is probably not peer reviewed and dubious RS). The objection to this article is that the term "regality theory" is used only by Fog. The rest of the sources do not use it, even by way of saying Fog has such a theory, so the accusation is that the use of these sources is OR by way of WP:SYNTH. Can you counter this with a single source that is not associated with Fog that directly uses the term "regality theory" and gives a definition of it. If not, at the very least the article is misnamed, but probably not suitable for a general encyclopaedia at all because it has not yet become notable enough to be discussed widely by scholars (or anybody). SpinningSpark 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete None of the discussion or changes so far has prompted me to change my original assessment, and I don't know, I'd like to be explicit that I do vote delete. i kan reed (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking that !vote as well to be fair in my strikes. The convention is that your nomination is taken as your delete !vote. If you still have a burning desire to bold your recommendation, put it there. SpinningSpark 17:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't realize that the varying names for the theory was the problem. The theory is called "Cultural r/k theory" and similar terms in previous publications. I have added a comment about this in the history section now. I will suggest making a redirection from "Cultural r/k theory" and "Cultural r/k selection" to Regality theory. Agnerf (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost every hit on scholar for that term was published by Fog, so same question, different name. The only one that isn't is an unpublished dissertation. Ph.D dissertations are taken as reliable sources here once they have been published. At the moment we are not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability for independent reliable sources. Papers written by Fog are not independent of a theory by Fog (perfectly ok for verifying facts, but they don't add to notability). SpinningSpark 08:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article now has eight independent secondary sources. How many do you need? Agnerf (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which of those eight (links would be helpful) have in-depth discussion of the topic of this article? SpinningSpark 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainly Van Schaik (2018), Tylor (2018), Tyler (2011) p. 73f + 292f. Agnerf (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having gone to the trouble of obtaining the first source mentioned, I find it is not an independent piece of research at all, but a book review. A book review of a book authored by Fog. I'm done with looking at this one now. This page is a classic example of why conflicted editors should not write about themselves, or their own research, on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 22:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if there are different understandings of what is relevant. I think that a discussion and evaluation of the theory by a professional in the form of a book review is very relevant in the context where it appears.Agnerf (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. What I love about wikipedia is that I can find relevant things here that I haven't been able to learn about from other online sources. On wikipedia I can find specialized things that aren't easily available elsewhere, and aren't part of common knowledge. That's one of the things that makes wikipedia so much more useful than previous print encyclopedias - its breadth, depth and scope. Another great thing about wikipedia is that its able to put all this knowledge in such a user friendly format, with pages linked to all other relevant pages. These things illustrate why I think the regality theory page should be kept. To me, the regality theory page illustrates what I love most about wikipedia relative to other sources. I didn't know that regality theory existed. I saw the link from the authoritarian personality page. The regality theory page was written so I could grasp its ideas rapidly even though I'm not in that field, and I found it extraordinarily relevant to what I was looking for. Only on wikipedia could this have happened.

Furthermore, the main argument for deletion is that it was created by the author of the theory. Some topics are so specialized that very few people are expert enough to create a wikipedia page for them, and those who are expert enough might have professional burdens that limit the time and inclination to edit wikipedia. So I think a case can be made for allowing the author of a specialized theory to create a wikipedia page for it under certain circumstances: if the article is clear and coherent to the nonexpert, and if there are relevant crosslinks to other wikipedia pages. I understand that you want to weed out hokey pet theories that have no soundness to them except in the authors eyes. I'll just put in my 2 cents that, to my reading of regality theory, it is more of an integration of other established theories into one meta-theory. Regality theory shows how all this other knowledge fits together into one coherent whole. There's nothing hokey about it. In fact, the statistical analysis in the referenced book (which I only knew about because of wikipedia) looks like it must make this one of the most statistically sound theory in all of social sciences. So those are all the reasons I recommend keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagersmith (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This is my first time commenting on something that's up for deletion. While it is a good 'meta' gathering of related theories(Terror Management Theory, Neuropolitics, Moral foundations theory, etc.) I feared when I first read it maybe weeks ago that it counted as 'Original Research' and would/should be deleted unfortunately according to the guidelines. Maybe it could be Merged into an article that sums up said related theories. There is a 'Political psychology' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenoC (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with similar theories. I accept that no consensus can be reached here. There are now two votes for delete, three for keep, and one for merge. Therefore, I will make the following proposal.

There are several other theories of cultural dimensions that make similar findings based on very different research traditions. We can make a larger article that explains these different theories under a common heading such as cultural dimensions theories. Relevant theories that might be included are:

  • Tight and loose cultures. This theory is briefly mentioned under Michele J. Gelfand who has a new book out on the topic, but it is an old theory that has been studied by many others.
  • Cultural values, such as traditional versus secular-rational values, survival versus self-expression values, etc. This is mentioned under Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world - an article with a narrow and limited focus.
  • Authoritarianism versus egalitarianism. The article on authoritarianism describes it as a type of government, while the article on egalitarianism treats is as a political philosophy. There is no description of these two as opposite cultural trends.
  • Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. This has its own page, and is also mentioned under Power distance. The Globe Study should also be mentioned.
  • Shalom H. Schwartz's cultural dimensions, including Hierarchy versus egalitarianism, are not mentioned in Wikipedia.
  • Cultural harshness versus softness. This theory is not covered by Wikipedia.
  • Trompenaars' model of national culture differences
  • Peter Turchin's theory of cultural asabiyya is briefly mentioned under Peter Turchin.
  • Regal versus kungic cultures, or regality theory. A short version of the present text.
Such an article would have significant encyclopedic value by providing an overview of the different theories, and discuss overlaps and differences between these. The Cambridge Handbook of Culture has such an overview, though more narrow [[1]]. I think Wikipedia should have it as well, of course without copying from the Cambridge Handbook of Culture.
This is in line with StevenoC's proposal, though I think his proposed overview-article will be too broad. But there could be links from the topics he mentions. Agnerf (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would involve writing an entirely new article. I doubt that the closing admin will offer an opinion on that as it is not germane to this deletion discussion. My opinion is that only dualities discussed in sources giving an overview and identifying them as belonging to the group should be included. SpinningSpark 12:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Google Scholar search for "regal kungic" (without quotes) gives 6 papers, all by Agner Fog. I assume that Agnerf is that person. Regal/kalyptic gives similar results. The ties to other research such as that of Peter Turchin appears to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH; I don't think Fog's research is mentioned by Turchin. This should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is cited by (now) ten secondary sources mentioned, mostly under names such as "cultural r/k selection theory" (but not under "regal kungic"). It is discussed and evaluated in a book review by van Schaik, discussed and further elaborated by Tyler (2011 and 2014), and applied to various areas of research by Rominek, Vidal, and Bloom.
There are no notability guidelines for scientific theories. WP:Notability_(books)#Academic_and_technical_books: "most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice." WP:Notability#General_notability_guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." My vote is keep or merge. Agnerf (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North America, I think it is time to close the discussion and make a decision. There is no point in repeating the same arguments. Thank you for your patience. Agnerf (talk) 08:44, 12 October 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. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet and in the absence of any other arguments for deletion, I’m closing as ‘keep’. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs in Finland

Arabs in Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reference, encyclopedic value. Fails WP:GNG. Pollock's (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Striking nomination by sockpuppet: WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. Per sourcing. Google search gives plenty of useful results as well for expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep generaly support keep reasons above. Fairly new with expansion, similar to a set of articles "ethnic group in country". Potential for merge options by grouping ethic group or by a set of countries, but possibility best to delay merge until various articles stable, no need to rush a merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:33, 5 October 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. Tone 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Meishar

Shira Meishar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable director, media coverage cited by the article is either from film festival listings (not independent), softball interviews for publicity (also not independent). Google searches through English and Hebrew media uncovered much the same, alongside some mere mentions in Haaretz and Mako for screening (but not winning) at Cannes. Does not meet general notability guideline. Meishar has won a "Spotlight Gold Award" from the Spotlight Short Film Festival, but this award does not appear to be notable and thus does not satisfy subject-specific notability guideline for creative professionals. Reportage in the Mako link above (not mentioned by the article) claims that her films have won some awards at Israeli film festivals which also appear to be non-notable. I had previously nominated the article for deletion by PROD but was blocked by the article creator, who then provided additional sources. However, these sources were more of the same sort of coverage in film-festival publicity websites and cannot be considered independent. I pinged the article creator on the talk page requesting better sources, and have not received a response. signed, Rosguill talk 18:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 20 September 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. While this discussion has mostly led to a split in opinions between deletion and merging, no consensus for a particular outcome has ultimately arisen. Discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. North America1000 06:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physical comparison of tigers and lions

AfDs for this article:
Physical comparison of tigers and lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted for much of the same reasons as the recently deleted Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards. It reads more like a personal essay than a proper Wikipedia article. Only a few of the sources used focus on comparing lions and tigers. The rest have lions only as a topic, tigers as a topic or are about big cats/Felidae as a whole, with differences between lions and tigers mentioned in passing. We also already have a Tiger vs lion article and comparisons between the species can be summarized there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This is a spinoff from Tiger vs lion per WP:SPLIT. As the parent article was large, it's reasonable to try this. If there's a problem with the separation then we'd just merge them back together. Deletion would not be appropriate per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Tiger versus lion, this was forked out of Tiger versus lion by another user due to the great detail, all from references, present in the parent article, and let me warn that this is far better than some other articles that you managed to get deleted.
1) Heptner and Sludskiy compared the two, saying that they were the two largest species.[1]
2) Haas et al. compared the two.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3) Vratislav Mazák compared them in things like the length of the skull.[3] Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it still has the same problems. Its just a larger article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you've only given examples of sources mentioning comparisons between the two in passing. This was the same problem with the leopard/jaguar/cheetah article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is much more to this than that, I was not even finished giving you examples, and do I have to tell you what you forgot to do when nominating this for deletion? Leo1pard (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I didn't infrom you first. But that does not automatically invalidate the deletion process. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the creator. Primefac had forked this from the main article, to reduce the immense detail in the main article, and it's not like the detail did not have sources. In fact, there are a lot of sources, listing all those sources here that talk about the issue of the lion versus tiger here would make this page very long. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry You deleted my comments! This is bias! Leo1pard (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was an editing conflict mistake. LittleJerry (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you also broke another rule here. Leo1pard (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to, it was an editing conflict. Go ahead and post it again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even aside from the accidental deletion of my comment, you did not do one important thing when nominating this for deletion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leo1pard, there is no requirement for an AFD nominator to inform the creator of a page (I assume that's what you're referring to). Primefac (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
  • Delete. LittleJerry hit the nail on the head in their initial nomination. This suffers from the same WP:SYNTH issues as recently cross-categorization AfDs of other big cats.[2][3] I reads like someone was trying to pull as much information as possible from sources when in realty, something like Physical_comparison_of_tigers_and_lions#Weight should just be tiger/lion weights range from X-Y at their given articles. What currently exists falls into WP:ISNOT territory.
I'm also seeing heavy reliance on primary sources too. As already mentioned at the past big cat AfDs that resulted in delete, scientists make physical comparisons of similar species all the time, but that generally does not contribute to notability. This one is no different. Instead, defining features of a species go to their respective articles, or else we have articles like Panthera that deal with comparative features within the broader group. Everything I'm finding in the article content-wise or source-wise is either not needed, redundant, or having synth issues by just detailing the individual animals rather than truly comparing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not a synthesis or mere cross-categorisation, and this is notable, and I showed only a few references to demonstrate my case, I have plenty more, both primary and secondary. For example, I already mentioned that Heptner and Sludskiy,[1] Haas et al.,[2] and Vratislav Mazák[3] compared the two in things like size and the length of the skull, and apart from that, and these are only examples of what I have as references:
1) Craig Packer compared them in weight and height, with a note on differences between subspecies.[4]
2) Sunquist and Sunquist compared them in behaviour.[5]
3) Charles Frederick Partington compared them in things like size and behaviour.[6]
4) Yamaguchi et al. compared their cranial capacities, and that is made prominent in the title "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity".[7]
5) Nyhus and Tilson compared them in cranial capacity and size or weight, with a note on differences between subspecies.[8]
6) Guinness World Records compared them in things like size,[9][10] if this wasn't notable, then why would this topic make it to Guinness? Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those particularly contribute to notability, and you've been cautioned about that at previous AfDs. My mention of SYNTH was from directly looking at the article and it's sources. Species that have some degree of relation are compared all the time like you see in those sources. What you've established is WP:DUE at existing articles to talk briefly about distinct features of big cats. This is instead becoming a WP:COATRACK to pile on as much information as possible about the animals. This is a case of working the sources too hard to try to make a separate article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that this even made it to Guinness shows how notable it is, and these are not the only sources that I have to show how notable this topic is, or that it is not a synthesis or coatrack, and by the way, I wasn't the one who made this a separate article, but decided to respect what another user decided about all these details. Leo1pard (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because: 1) the content is also already provided in the pages on tiger, lion and in the ones on populations, and with exhaustive enough details there already; 2) the fact that scientists compare species does not make a standalone page on such a topic in wikipedia notable or necessary, but imo is redundant; 3) this page indeed has features of an essay as LittleJerry pointed out (though not short enough to be one). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, because 1) This page has content that is not in pages like Tiger and Lion; 2) It is not just scientists who compared them, even Guinness did that; 3) As pointed out, this topic has been directly mentioned in a number of sources, including these (By the way, I thought you changed your mind about engaging me in an argument, after saying this to me, because of which I decided to avoid engaging you in any argument, until you come here to argue with me?).[9][10][4][6][7][8] Leo1pard (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, simply being mentioned is not enough for notability. Only one of the sources you provided focuses on comparing lions and tigers. The rest only talk about it in a few sentences/paragraphs as part of a greater topic of lions as a species, tigers or of felids. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, more than one source talks specifically about lions and tigers, with comparisons to other animals being left in other passages, do I have to show why that is the case? Leo1pard (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you've already been told, simply talking about them is not enough. Species X vs. Y articles are almost always going to violate WP:NOTDIR policy in terms for cross-categorizations. The push for all these tiger vs. lion vs. cougar, etc. articles is a very WP:UNDUE use of sources for basic information they provide about species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said to you that this is not a mere cross-categorisation, and I have been careful about the issue of WP:Neutrality when dealing with different sources like these,[9][10][4][6][7][8] this is not basic information about species, I already showed you parts of the details in those sources, and I can give you more to demonstrate what I mean. For example:
1) Brakefield compared them in things like size and shape of the belly, with a note on differences between subspecies.[11]
2) The English Cyclopædia compared them in things like skulls.[12]
3) The Penny Cyclopædia compared them in things like skulls.[13]
I have already listed not just scientific publications, but also cyclopædias and world records to show how notable this topic is, and this is not all that I have. Leo1pard (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. Find a sizable amount of sources that focus solely on lion and tiger physical comparisons and then we'll talk. Otherwise you're talking in circles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do have sources that focus mostly or solely on that, but as per WP:GNG, there should be reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as in, "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"), so what rule is this? As per WP:GNG, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I have shown why this is covered in independent reliable sources, and thus satisfies WP:GNG, even without putting all reliable references that are independent of the topic, yet talk about it, so please don't give me any more personal rules like that sources shouldn't be independent of the topic. Leo1pard (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now your throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. All sources on lions and tigers are independent of them since they are not actually writing about themselves. And you only have one source that exclusively focuses on them. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have only one source that focuses exclusively on them, and I know that we are supposed to have sources that are independent of the subject, and yet it should be covered in enough of them to show how notable it is, and here, I have shown only a number of sources that deal with them,[9][10][4][6][7][8][11][12][13] independently, directly or otherwise, and not appreciating what valid references may say like this is not acceptable. Leo1pard (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*sign*, I removed that source because it don't belong in the lead paragraphs and there was already sourced information below stating pretty much the same thing. You are hitting below the belt to save your pet project. LittleJerry (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sorry but this is simply not encyclopedic. Tiger vs lion does whatever job there is to do here, better, but frankly we don't need N-squared species-comparison articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How is a WP:Comparison not encyclopaedic, and in the context of Wikipedia, considering that topics should be covered in reliable, independent sources, I have shown these to be applicable to this topic? Leo1pard (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Organisms that are related or share a similar function or ecological niche are always going to compared. That doesn't mean these comparisons should have their own articles. But your logic we can have articles like "Comparisons of polar bears and brown bears" or "Comparisons of bats and birds" or "Comparisons of plants and animals". LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they do depends on notability, and I have so many reliable or independent sources on this that there should be no doubt as to its notability. Leo1pard (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Tiger vs lion, but only if there is any unique content left over after first deleting the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR material presently bloating this article. I also have concerns that this is actually a non-encyclopediac topic that should not exist under any title. Loopy30 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What WP:SYNTH or WP:OR? I've gone through the various references like these[9][10][4][6][7][8][11][12][13] and described what they say. For example, if there was a mention on conflicting views about exactly which lions or tigers were bigger than the others, then I noted that down. Leo1pard (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point already. Don't badger everyone who puts in their two cents. LittleJerry (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, whatever happens here is because of what you have done. If you don't want this type of thing from happening again, then stop doing things like this. I talked to you earlier regarding an issue like this, but you didn't care, and decided to carry on, and now, this is all happening because of what you have done. If you WP:don't like something that has been covered in valid sources, then don't bother with it, don't have anything to do with it. Leo1pard (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A. (1992) [1972]. Mlekopitajuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Moskva: Vysšaia Škola [Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation. pp. 83–202. ISBN 90-04-08876-8.
  2. ^ a b Haas, S.K.; Hayssen, V.; Krausman, P.R. (2005). "Panthera leo" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 762: 1–11. doi:10.1644/1545-1410(2005)762[0001:PL]2.0.CO;2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2017.
  3. ^ a b Mazák, V. (1981). "Panthera tigris" (PDF). Mammalian Species. 152 (152): 1–8. doi:10.2307/3504004. JSTOR 3504004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2012.
  4. ^ a b c d e Packer, C. "Frequently asked questions". University of Minnesota Lion Research Project. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
  5. ^ Sunquist, M.; Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild Cats of the World (1st ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. pp. 7–350. ISBN 978-0-22-677999-7.
  6. ^ a b c d e Charles Frederick Partington (1835). "Felis, the cat tribe". The British cyclopæedia of natural history. Orr & Smith.
  7. ^ a b c d e Yamaguchi, N.; Kitchener, A. C.; Gilissen, E.; MacDonald, D. W. (2009). "Brain size of the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (P. tigris): implications for intrageneric phylogeny, intraspecific differences and the effects of captivity". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 98 (1): 85–93. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01249.x.
  8. ^ a b c d e Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-8155-1570-8
  9. ^ a b c d e Wood, Gerald L. (1976). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Guinness Superlatives. ISBN 978-0-900424-60-1. Retrieved 2017-10-16.
  10. ^ a b c d e Wood, G. L. (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. Sterling Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85112-235-9.
  11. ^ a b c Brakefield, Tom (1993). Big Cats: Kingdom of Might. Voyageur Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-89658-329-0.
  12. ^ a b c Charles Knight, ed. (1867). The English Cyclopaedia. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
  13. ^ a b c The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 14. Charles Knight and Co. 1846-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 23:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I had relisted this on 4 October 2018 but it was reverted with an edit summary stating that "it should not be relisted again", along with a link to an opinion essay (diff). Furthermore, the relisting reversion was performed by a participant in this discussion, which is generally out of process. North America1000 23:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per Wikipedia:Relisting, articles should not be relisted when a consensus has taken place. There was already a lengthy discussion of a page that was nominated for deletion since the 20th of September, with no clear consensus, and this page had earlier been relisted on the 27th of September, so the best thing now is to close this as "no consensus". Under the rules, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Since there already has been substantive debate, I have to decry the repeated act of relisting as WP:Abusive relisting. Leo1pard (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus that the article should either be deleted or merged back to the Lion vs Tiger article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the essay you linked states "Avoid relisting a deletion discussion if a consensus has been firmly and recently established." It names abusive relisting as attempts to get more users to comment in order to reverse a consensus. Northamerica1000 is clearly not doing that. LittleJerry (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion should have long been over since the 30th of September. As per the rules, relisting should not be an excuse to avoid closing the process, and it's been 17 days since you've nominated it for deletion, and over 7 days since it was initially relisted by Northamerica, which allowed the large debate to continue on, so Northamerica should not have relisted it again. It's time for a closure. Leo1pard (talk) 18:05, 7 October 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. Tone 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Fiyaz

Javed Fiyaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak notability, written to promote the subject. Either need to completely rewritten but I failed to find reliable sources. There are some trivial mention in sources but not enough to start an article. Otherwise, he completely fails WP:ANYBIO as he has no achievement or award to his name. Thanks. Pollock's (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article has multiple issues including WP:NPOV and given WP:UNDUE weight to some activities, but I think the articles meets notability criteria. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources are almost universally horrible (including youtube, his website, and various hosting services), and while there may be one or two decent articles about him, I don't think this meets GNG. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its sources are either invalid (YouTube), self-published (his own website), or are trivial WP:ROUTINE coverage. There is a lack of enough WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. The article is a thinly veiled attempt at promoting this individual despite his lack of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:47, 27 September 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. Several requests for relisting asked for more specifics on what references provide notability outside a single event. Specific references demonstrating this were not provided, supporting the argument that this individual is indeed notable for only a single event. If anyone feels that the event itself is notable and would like this userfied to help in creating an article on it, let me know and I'll be happy to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean A. Stevens

Jean A. Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, as the subject has only received significant coverage for being the first female to say a prayer at the end of an LDS general conference. Other aspects of the subject in independent, reliable sources are limited to passing mentions and name checks. North America1000 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep. Thing is, she's not known "only in the context of a single event," she's not a "a low-profile individual," and her role in the prayer event Nom menitons was both "significant" and "substantial." This is not WP:BLP1E. She held a significant office within the LDS hierarchy before that prayer, and went on (together with her husband, Mormons head missions two by two,) to head the LDS mission in London, these activities are covered in WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Can you provide any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage outside of the subject saying the prayer? I looked, and didn't find any. This is important, because subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject outside of the prayer coverage. North America1000 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sources 7,8, 11, 12 and 13 cover her present post, at LDS London. Deseret is semi-independent of the Church, but the Salt Lake Tribune is independent. This search [4] shows that her activities continue to attract some notice, albeit only a little. Let's see what other editors find. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Below is my analysis of those sources. North America1000 17:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • #7 was published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church. This is a primary source, and does not serve to establish notability.
  • #8 provides two sentences about the subject, and reads like it is directly from a press release. In my view, this is not significant coverage.
  • #11 is about the prayer, and furthermore, only has one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage.
  • #12 has some coverage, but most of it is interview content, making it primary in nature.
  • #13 has one lone passing mention. This is not significant coverage.
Unsurprisingly, other independent newspapers in regions with large Mormon populations , like Gannett-owned The Spectrum (Utah), and the Idaho State Journal covered her activities as one of the leaders of the Primary in the years before the prayer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is widespread and significant coverage of her in multiple indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Said coverage, however, is all about the subject stating a prayer. This remains a WP:BLP1E situation. North America1000 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing enough sources to pass GNG, even though some are trivial and it is a borderline case of notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Editorofthewiki: Are the sources you mention all about the WP:BLP1E matter of saying a prayer, or has the subject received significant coverage about other matters? I haven't seen any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the latter yet. North America1000 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I concur with Northamerica1000's analysis of the (lack of) significance of the sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be useful if the people arguing to keep would be more specific about which sources they are putting forth, and how they meet policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is no separate article about the event. And even if there was, the appropriate action would be merger not deletion. The subject is notable for her milestone achievement which is highlighted in additional sources such as Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings. It's amazing that, after the recent fuss about Donna Strickland we still have attempts to delete content about pioneering women. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Andrew mentioned this ongoing AFD of an article on "a pioneering women" on the WIR talkpage here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject has only received significant coverage for one matter, saying a prayer, that's it. WP:BLP1E applies entirely, regardless of the gender of the subject, which has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Notice the source review above regarding coverage the subject has received for other matters; this is not significant coverage at all. North America1000 23:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came here solely because I noticed Andrew's somewhat canvassy message on WIR and felt I should post a notification about that message here, but now looking at the content of Andrew's !vote I gotta say I agree with NA1000: standard operating procedure when we don't have an article on the sole event for which BLP1Es are notable is to either delete the biographical article and maybe create an article on the event in its place, or to retitle and rewrite the article into a completely different article, which is de facto deletion. Furthermore, if the idea is that BLP1E doesn't apply because we don't have an article on the event and so this page shouldn't be deleted or redirected but rather retitled and refocused, then WIR is irrelevant because the goal of not having a standalone article on this woman's biography is the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was one of the three top leaders of an international organization with millions of members. She is not notable just for one event contrary to the claims of some here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it does not appear that the subject has received any significant coverage for said leadership roles. All the significant coverage is for one event, saying one prayer. Religious leaders do not get a free pass for a Wikipedia article, in part because no guideline or policy exists that provides presumed notability for said subjects. North America1000 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Andrew D., but you seem to be on a quest to rectify some kind of injustice here rather than focusing on the work involved in deciding whethere to keep or delete the article. (You even dismiss the work itself. In your own words, "Wikipedia editors should be editing and anything which takes them away from this activity is counter-productive"! Really?! I beg to differ, and quite strongly too.) As you probably are well aware, Wikipedia is not the place to engage in advocacy or political activism. So, if you feel that more Wikipedia articles about women should be created and for that purpose we should ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you need to take it up to the appropriate forums. This is not the place for that battle, if you think we need one. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome has got it backwards as I didn't make this nomination. It's Northamerica1000 who seems to be on a mission of some sort because it appears that they have nominated numerous articles about Mormons for deletion recently. I don't know what that's all about but I'm just responding as a deletion patroller, reviewing the topic by reference to the facts of the matter and our policies. I have some familiarity with this sort of topic because I have, for example, started an article about another female spiritual pioneer -- Sarah Crosby -- and consider both topics to be reasonable content. NA1000 seems hung up on the idea that leading a congregation in prayer is of no significance and we should delete on these grounds. I don't agree with that opinion as it seems not to be neutral. And I definitely don't agree that WP:BLP1E is a reason to delete as the three conditions are not met. As WP:BLP1E is not a reason to delete, the other policies, such as WP:ATD, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE, clearly indicate that we should not delete this. Amen. Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you, Andrew D., to your own commentary here, wherefrom your words were lifted verbatim. As to editors proposing for deletion a bunch of related articles within a short period of time, they're not necessarily on a "mission" (biased noms, agendas, fixation, etc). It might be so but more often than not it's not. Diligent editors who identify a flaw with an article on subject XYZ would search for other, similarly flawed, XYZ-related articles. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie333, I guess that you do not need to be pointed out that you need to provide specific sources? ∯WBGconverse 18:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie333: Also, your !vote does not address the WP:BLP1E matter at all, which is the entire basis of the nomination. The only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that appears to exist is about the subject saying one prayer at one event. North America1000 07:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This appears to be a textbook case for BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The lede says it all, she's famous for one prayer at an event. Nothing else comes close to notability. Ifnord (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more re-list as this is a BLP. A number of Keep !votes are pointing out that "there are sources", some more meat on the bones would possibly be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Well, three of the keep !votes above do not address the very core basis of the nomination, that this is a WP:BLP1E situation whereby the subject is notable only for one event. One keep !vote states one's own made-up rules regarding BLP1E, erroneously stating that WP:BLP1E is somehow not applicable unless an event article already exists. Additionally, this nomination is not based upon WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, but the three mentioned !votes above are addressing the nomination as though it is (e.g. "there are sources"). North America1000 13:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E states cleary that three conditions must be satisfied for it to be applicable. These conditions are not satisfied because the subject was not a low profile person; she was a prominent person in the church. Her role in the event was substantial and we don't have a separate article for it to merge to. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E, we should retain this article to record both the event and its primary instigator, just like we record other pioneering women. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, where a low profile individual is defined in part as a subject who "Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization. The LDS Church is a religious organization. Clearly a low profile subject per Wikipedia's standards. WP:BLP1E continues to be clearly applicable. North America1000 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with NA and stand by my Delete. This is a textbook example of BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that it's a matter of perspective, but I agree with Andrew Davidson,. to me, she looks like a person who is notable by our standards because she was prominent as a leader of an important, mass membership organization. Her activities have been covered in the press over many years, and she also had a moment of national attention that continues to be revisited in books such as American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, 1867–1940, University of North Carolina Press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Perhaps you don't get it regarding WP:BLP1E, but the book source you linked above (here) simply provides a one-sentence passing mention about the subject saying the prayer at the event, the basis of this nomination. This is the only matter that the subject has received significant coverage about, nothing else, and that book source doesn't even provide that, just a passing mention. Your link actually furthers the stance that it's a WP:BLP1E matter. North America1000 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that her prayer is mentioned in a number of books, scholarly, and journalistic sources years after the event establishes her as a person about whom others will become curious enough to look up in Wikipedia. Moreover, your repeated assertions that the only aspect of her career and life that have garnered SIGCOV is this prayer is inaccurate, showing a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is. Such coverage can, under our policies, be comprised of the cumulative total of coverage that is significant but brief in multiple WP:RS over many years, as is the case with this fairly well-sourced article. Also, WP:BLUDGEONING an AfD discussion is disparaged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a source analysis of the refs you provided above in the discussion. Primary sources and passing mentions do not create notability outside of the one event, in my opinion. Furthermore, well-reasoned, calm debate is never "bludgeoning" the process. Thanks for your reply regarding my query, and we will have to agree to disagree. North America1000 09:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Stevens does not qualify as WP:BLP1E. To do so, she would have to meet "each of three conditions":
1.) "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Patently untrue since WP:RS covered her before and after the event in other contexts.
2.) " remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - she became a public figure whose activities were covered in the press in 2010 when she became what National Public Radio described (in an article about the 2013 prayer,) as "a high-ranking leader in Primary, an educational arm facilitating religious instruction for children. Coverage of her pre-prayer activities in WP:RS is on the page.
3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." obviously does not describe this case.
I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is not a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing you cite the prerequisites for WP:BLP1E qualification, E.M.Gregory, because we can now pick 'em apart one by one.
(1) The sources covering her before that one event do not amount to the subject being notable, sorry. Remember that the person should be "worthy of notice" or "of note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Almost all mentions in sources spring from the event. (2) The subject remains a low-profile individual. E.M.Gregory should have clarified that the NPR article contains indeed the phrase quoted ("E.M.Gregory") but that is the only mention the person gets in the article. It is an article devoted to the event (and its ostensible significance for Mormons) but not at all to the subject person. As to (3), the event itself is of significance strictly within the confines of the subject's Church. Not many outside sources seem to have taken notice. So, I echo your call to action:
I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is strictly a BLP1E. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this woman is notable on her own. Perhaps a new article, Church of the Latter Day Saints General Conference Prayer 2013? There seems to be some interest in this topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Oct. 17 comment by USER:Andrew D. (above) should probably be taken into account by closing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, the tone of several comments shows the extent to which Christianity has become one of the more highly fraught topics on WP. I see this both in the dismissive tone taken by some editors towards the significance of church-related activities and organizations, and on pages supported by sectarian enthusiasts, who take umbrage when the notability of a beloved individual or institution is questioned. We need to tone it down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate to say it, because I am very convinced Stevens is notable, but I have to say the role of her giving the prayer is over stated. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people do not "lead a congregation in prayer" they "give a prayer". Either way giving a prayer heard by tens if not hundreds of thousands is a big deal,although since the prayers are not published in the conference report, it is actually not as big as giving a talk (which Stevens also did in general conference). Another point to keep in mind is that people do not give prayers in general conference at their own initiative, they are asked to give them. Still, just because someone does not fully initiate an action does not mean that they are not notable for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This comment does help explain why an apparently important "first" for women in the LDS church (according to non-LDS sources) does not seem to rate a mention in the General Conference (LDS Church) article. The Mormonism and women article does mention the 2013 event, but without discussing Stevens or citing a source. Bakazaka (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a source analysis of references in the article as of this post (link). In some instances, a url is not present in the article, such as for the book sources, but I have added links to the sources below in the table, so others can assess the depth of coverage. I cannot access one ProQuest source: Google searches for it is providing nothing, and the title of the article suggests that it consists of routine, run of the mill coverage. I have researched this quite a bit, and notions above in the discussion that the subject has received significant coverage for other matters is just not substantiated in actual available sources at all. I still view this as a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, which qualifies the article for deletion. Just read the sources listed below; the proof is in the pudding. North America1000 08:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis
"Sister Jean A. Stevens". LDS.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Primary source – not usable to establish notability
"First prayer by woman offered at Mormon conference", The Salt Lake Tribune, 2013-04-06. WP:BLP1E source about the one event
David Kelly, "In rare event, woman leads prayer at major Mormon conference", Los Angeles Times, 2013-04-06. WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Doug Barry, "Woman Leads Mormons in Prayer for the First Time in Forever", Jezebel, 2013-04-06. WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Francis, Janae (4 April 2010). "LDS Church leaders focus on families". Standard-Examiner. ? Cannot access ProQuest, could not find the article in searches. The title suggests that this may simply be routine coverage.
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "Families in peril, LDS leaders warn". Salt Lake Tribune. Passing mention, subject is only mentioned in the image caption, and nowhere else in the article: Not WP:SIGCOV
"Parents Lessons Prepared Sister Jean Stevens", Church News, August 7, 2010. Primary source – not usable to establish notability
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "New Primary presidency chosen for LDS children". Salt Lake Tribune. Consists of a single quotation from the subject, making it primary and not WP:SIGCOV
Walch, Ted (27 March 2015). "Preparing to split up, LDS General Primary Presidency looks back on 5 years of service together". Deseret News. Provides some coverage; I consider it to be below the bar of significant, independent coverage. Much of this consists of quotations and the subject's feelings, rather than being about the subject herself.
"Jean A. Stevens", Liahona, May 2010. Primary source – not usable to establish notability
Stapley, Jonathan (2018). The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology. Oxford University Press. p. 100. ISBN 9780190844431. WP:BLP1E source about the one event, consisting of one sentence about the subject (Not WP:SIGCOV).
Fowler, Geoffrey (8 April 2013). "U.S. News: Woman Leads Prayer at Mormon Event". Wall Street Journal. WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Mason, David (9 April 2013). "A Mormon glass ceiling shattered". Washington Post. WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Christensen, David (2015). A Thankful Heart: 31 Teachings to Recognize Blessings in Your Life. Cedar Fort, Inc. ISBN 9781462124992. Consists entirely of a quotation from the subject, with nothing else: a Primary source
Brewer, Jen. We Are Daughters of Our Heavenly Father: Striving to Live the Young Women Values. Cedar Fort, Inc. ISBN 9781462124794. Passing mentions of a quote the subject stated. Not WP:SIGCOV.
Petersen, Sara; Jones, Morgan; Toone, Trent (19 November 2004). "'Attitude of gratitude': 25 quotes from LDS leaders on being thankful". Deseret News. Limited to only a quotation from the subject: a primary source
Walch, Ted (10 April 2018). "After 'electric' general conference, U.K. Mormons eager to see, hear President Nelson in London". Deseret News. A single quotation from the subject, primary and not WP:SIGCOV
"Mormon woman who uttered historic prayer gets new assignment". Salt Lake Tribune. 2 March 2015. Has two sentences about the subject. Not WP:SIGCOV
New Mission Presidents, Church News, 28 February 2015. Primary source – not usable to establish notability
Walch, Tad (16 June 2017). "Mormon apostle at Oxford: Lessons learned from Watergate scandal". Deseret News. Single, very short mention. Not WP:SIGCOV
Wilks, Doug (14 April 2018). "Inside the newsroom: How we follow the prophet (literally) around the world". Deseret News. Single, very short mention. Not WP:SIGCOV
"General Auxiliaries: Sister Jean A. Stevens", lds.org Primary source – not usable to establish notability
  • This is probably the strangest AfD I have ever take part in. It is one of a series of several dozen articles on LDS that North America has brought to deletion. LDS is unique in many ways, not least because the leadership of the church is largely in groups. Stevens was part of the Presidency of Primary (LDS Church), an organization that works to gibe a Christian upbringing to over a million member children. The Presidency is a group of three. The media usually covers them as a group, media runs profiles of all three in one article. The Utah press is another oddness, the major papers in Salt Lake City areDeseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. Deseret is owned by the Mormon Church, but it is editorially independent. Deseret is not the Mormon version of the National Catholic Register or The Jewish Week. It is a real newspaper covering everything big city dailies cover, except that both it and the Salt Lake Tribune continue to cover Church news with beat reporters in the way all American big city papers used to cover the dominant denomination in their region (Catholics in Chicago, Baptists in Montgomery,) but papers in other big cities no longer do. in other words, Leaders of LDS are public figures. The oddest thing about this discussion is the intensity. A leader of a large organization, who travels, speaks works for the organization and gets press in far flung presses, and ONGOING, INDEPTH in the organizations headquarters city. Whose essays and authored prayers (writing a significant prayer is like writing a significant essay,) are cited in other people's books and essays. And who also was the principal in an event that had a national and international attention for a moment, a milestone that is now in the history books... To me, the quesiton is, why editors are putting such intensity into deleting this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've done everything but address my source analysis above, but that's okay, because you have already stated that you consider the sources to be usable to establish notability. I disagree, because per Wikipedia's standards, they really don't. Outside of the one event, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. My intentions are to be objective about the subject's notability; there are no feelings about it on my part (e.g. "such intensity", etc.), just objective analysis. You are applying your own standards of notability, but one sentence mentions and name checks (which are certainly not in-depth), along with quotations and primary sources just don't establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America1000 11:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excellent analysis of the refs. More effort has gone into sourcing this article than the other non notable LDS articles nominated recently - but it is just more of the same. Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 24 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karbelt Speed & Custom

Karbelt Speed & Custom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company, not reliably sourced as passing WP:CORP standards of notability. The references here are both directly affiliated primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage: one is a directory profile on the self-published website of its industry marketing association, while the other is a press release on the self-published website of an organization with which it signed a sponsorship deal. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because primary sources like this technically verify that they exist -- a company has to have media coverage, in reliable sources they are not directly affiliated with, to be considered notable per CORP. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best source I could find was [5], which is fairly clearly based on a press release, and thus isn't intellectually independent. Vanamonde (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I would argue that being Canada's first speed shop would make it notable, but there are no policies that say that notability is derived from that. I couldn't find any sources sufficient for WP:GNG and a redirect to Bay Street doesn't make sense, given that there's no in-depth history section there, so a deletion is probably the best option. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 27 September 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 Unifor. Sandstein 12:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unifor Local 1285

Unifor Local 1285 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an individual local of a national labour union, not reliably sourced as having any strong standalone notability as a separate topic from the parent organization. As always, national or international organizations do not automatically get to spin off hundreds of subarticles about each individual local chapter -- but the references here (which are contextlessly listed, rather than footnoting anything in the body text) aren't really providing strong support for independent notability: two are much more about the plant that the union members work at than they are about the local per se, and the other three are about the parent organization rather than this particular local. This is simply not enough sourcing to make Local 1285 independently notable as a separate topic from Unifor as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Unifor article. Nom is correct, but this Local seems to have a strong importance within Unifor and woithin the community of Brandfort, as witness that the article for this local is longer and better-sourced than the main Unifor article. Emass100 (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:27, 12 October 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. Tone 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diocemy Saint Juste

Diocemy Saint Juste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. The extent of his professional football career was a tryout with the Jacksonville Jaguars [6]. In college, he did not win any national awards or attract significant, non-trivial national media coverage as a player.

However, he has been the subject of a profile by the Reporter-Herald in Loveland, Colorado previewing a Colorado State football game, "CSU football faces a throwback runner in Hawaii's Diocemy Saint Juste". The Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the largest newspaper in Hawaii, had a story in 2017, "Saint Juste sets carries record", reporting that Saint Juste broke his college team's single-season rushing attempts record. He also was eighth in all of NCAA D1 FBS in rushing yards per game. However, even those records are not enough for NCOLLATH notability. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is long established that WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusionary standard and that college players who satisfy WP:GNG may also be included. Saint Juste was one of the leading rushers in college football's Division I FBS with > 1,500 yards in 2017. He received coverage in multiple reliable sources and thus passes under GNG. Regardless of whether he makes it in the NFL, he has clear notability from his college career. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A search of NewsLibrary.com turns up over 1,000 hits. A tiny sampling of the significant coverage includes: (1) "Saint Juste invited to NFLPA Collegiate Bowl", Honolulu Star Advertiser, 1/3/18; (2) "Saint Juste named 'Bows MVP at Waterhouse Memorial Football Awards Banquet", KHON, 11/26/17; (3) "Saint Juste, Hawaii beat San Jose State, snap 4-game skid", USA Today, 10/15/17; (4) "Saint Juste rises amid Hawaii slide", Hawaii Tribune Herald, 10/13/17; (5) "CSU Rams bracing for Hawaii RB Diocemy Saint Juste", Loveland Reporter-Herald, 9/26/17; (6) "Saint Juste runs for 202 yards, Hawaii tops Western Carolina", Chicago Daily Herald, 9/3/17; (7) "Big finish for Saint Juste" Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 12/25/16; (8) "Saint Juste has a plan for staying on the field to help the Warriors", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/6/16; (9) "UH RB Saint Juste Too Strong for His Body" Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/3/16; (10) "Warriors' Saint Juste now up to speed, Everything's coming naturally for running back Diocemy Saint Juste in Hawaii's new but familiar offensive system", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/7/15; (11) "Saint Juste eager to run with it, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 8/23/14; (12) "Saint Juste on right track", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 4/13/14; and (13) "Santaluces running back Diocemy Saint Juste verbally commits to Hawaii", Palm Beach Post, 1/15/13. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The stories about his verbal commitment from high school and making the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl are WP:ROUTINE news coverage for many high school/college football players, many of whom do not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Also, being the MVP of a Division I team is not a sign of notability. Some of those stories (like the Western Carolina one) concern the team more than just Saint Juste. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you will find that many of those examples are actually WP:NOTROUTINE. Sure, some are by nature, but others provide more detail than we find for the typical college athlete and far surpasses the standards set in WP:ROUTINE for sports of "sports scores" -- further, WP:ROUTINE references specifically the notability of events and not people.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While many of the articles of the 1,000+ articles I found are routine (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage or mere transactional announcements), many others represent significant coverage with details of Saint Juste's life and accomplishments. The 13 items selected above are but a few of the examples of significant coverage. The essential truth, I suspect, is that any running back who ranks among the top 10 rushers (among several hundred running backs in Division I FBS) in a given year will be the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. There are plenty of border-line cases where notability is doubtful, but this is not one of them. Cbl62 (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the selection of articles above is that the articles which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV are all local sources, the ones that are national sources are routine reporting of upcoming games or AP news reports which are about as "routine sports scores" as they come. WP:NCOLLATH specifies national media attention, and I don't see this at all (the Florida article is because he was local to Florida at the time of writing.) SportingFlyer talk 06:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find anything in WP:SIGCOV that disqualifies "local" sources. The word "local" does not even appear on the page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking specifically at WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. SportingFlyer talk 14:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory language of those two sub-guidelines is clear that they are inclusionary and not exclusionary: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. John de Britto Institute

St. John de Britto Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, largely based on the own website and related sources The Banner talk 17:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two-year old school with no independent sources found in search. Product of promotional editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep teacher training college of higher education, with verifying references, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A tertiary teacher training college, even if it is relatively small. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real teacher training college.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - recognised tertiary institution. Searching on Instituto São João de Brito as well as the English name brings up enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 22:26, 11 October 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. We really need better guidelines on notability of LDS leadership. We've had a large number of these at AfD, and the results seem almost random, based on who happened to show up for any particular AfD. In any case, people at this AfD have not found a common ground, so NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Gay

Robert C. Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions, quotations from the subject and name checks. Except for one source that provides a passing mention, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. North America1000 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator misused the term "primary source". There is no way to call the published in magazines and newspapers going through editors sources here "primary". Beyond this, I have shown a source from Fortune all about Gay's retirement from HGGC. I have also found multiple indepth sources about his connection with Mitt Romney, and strongly suspect there is more out there. This [7] on Gay might not add much, but it does show another way he gets coverage. We have this article on a speech he gave at UVU [8]. This [9] Salt Lake Tribune article mentions Gay. There are lots of mentions of him under the name Bob Gay in relation to Unitas and Microfinance. I am still looking for a true indepth study, but there are lots of mentions that may add up to something. There is much more there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a synopsis of the sources presented in the !vote directly above. North America1000 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10] – A profile page that provides some coverage
  • [11] – Consists mostly of quotations from the subject. There are only four sentences of non-quotation content. In my view this is not significant coverage.
  • [12] – Has one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage at all.
  • Comment This [13] contains multiple mentions of Gay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here [14] we have a book mentioning the Romney doing the intense search for Gay's daughter episode. Here is the Bloomberg entry on Gay [15].John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability guideline "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". deisenbe (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: You are citing a threshold at Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the basic criteria. Please see WP:BASIC and also the fallacy of WP:INTERESTING. --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to have substantive coverage. Also I see no claim to "significance". Neither being a general authority of the church, nor a member of the Seventy provides inherent notability. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, most coverage the subject has received consists of mentions, rather than significant coverage, and there is no presumed notability for religious leaders. North America1000 06:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 15:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also the remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo E. Martinez (3rd nomination) regarding no inherent notability for these positions, especially the remarks of editor Bakazaka. --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 12 October 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 is clearly no consensus to delete this page, and the relist has allowed the discussion to come to a firmer conclusion than it may previously have appeared to. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Chinen

AfDs for this article:
Kama Chinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E. Only notable for her age, and 2 out of 3 sources are about her death. The other (Abc news) is probably a list. And I want to repeat what was said at the AFD in 2008 : she and her family had specifically asked the Japanese government to remain anonymous and they respected her wishes » Shadowowl | talk 16:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what there is to merge to that other article. There is only one sentence in this article that is actually about her and that would not fit in a list, so just what would we be merging? This article was deleted once before for a reason. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions. Besides one sentence about her health, there is essentially nothing said about her in an article about her that doesn't fit in a list. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, so this article is not needed. Given this individuals apparent obscurity, I think heavy weight should be given to her and her family's desire for anonymity as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have limited information about the subject but she is nevertheless notable because of the widespread, global coverage. The threshold for notability on Wikipedia is quite low. See Chitty (cricketer)these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. r better. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You invalidate your own point by mentioning the cricketer, which played one first-class match and is notable. This person is not notable and she and her familiy specifically asked to not get media attention. Your rationale is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ignoring someones death wishes. The maximum of information that should be given is being mentioned on a list, no need for this article. » Shadowowl | talk 21:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". We don't just have articles about little know figures like Chitty. We also have articles about other similar subjects such as Kane Tanaka and Chiyo Miyako. These were similarly contested recently and are still there. We have clear precendents and so there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, fine that you bring that up! Are you still grave dancing over the admins that left because your group of keepists and their friend Fish and Karate? I would be fine if you didn't bring that up, but now I know that your really a <expletive>. Anyways, I would recommend NOT using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS while trying to say that you didn't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. » Shadowowl | talk 22:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, I don't see how your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS proves in any way that this article should be kept. There is no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is entitled to being notable enough for an article. You're not presenting an actual argument, your just creating keepist noise. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate list(s), obviously. There's no apparent basis for more than a stub. EEng 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This source, published immediately after Baines's death, would seem to discredit the unsourced claim made by the original OP that she requested to remain anonymous and a research group dug and dug until they found out anyway, unless it can be verified that this happened before she became the world's oldest. The present OP is, therefore, based on unsourced speculation, and should be promptly dismissed, unless User:Shadowowl wants to withdraw this nomination before that happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hijiri88: This only mentions the person once. Anyways, this person should be only having a list entry. » Shadowowl | talk 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowowl: Umm ... can you read Japanese? Or English? I wasn't proposing using the source to expand the article, but (clearly) using it to refute the unsourced (or, rather, Wikipedia-sourced) assertion you made above that she and her family wanted her identity kept private. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. There is no guideline or policy that says "oldest X is notable". If the sources in this article meant she was somehow "notable" then WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here as there is NOTHING to say about her other than she was born, she became the oldest in the world and then she died. That's the entirety of the article bar one sentence about her using a wheelchair and another about who her successor/predecessor was which isn't enough to justify an article. There is never going to be more than six sentences (and two of those strain to pad this article) about her so entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for more or less the same reasons I nominated this page for deletion a decade ago. In terms of sourcing, not much has changed; there is still no evidence of the type of coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:N. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Canadian Paul: I'm not that invested in keeping this article one way or the other (I think this AFD should be speedy-closed without prejudice as a result of its being based on a flawed premise, but emphasis on "without prejudice"), but could you provide a source for the claim that Chinen and her family wished to keep her identity private? It seems almost impossible that a private research group "dug and dug" until they found out who she was in the space of a single day after her predecessor in the "oldest in the world" spot passed away (per the source I cited above, this information was readily available within one day), and it seems almost as unlikely that they put that much effort into finding out who she was in advance, based on the assumption that Baines would die before she did. This is all OR, of course, but I'm not arguing for it to be included in the article, just for the article to be kept pending some source that verifies the mutual premise of both your original AFD and the present one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: I'll look for more direct evidence when I have the time (since that was many years ago), but you can see from the first response from the GRG that they more or less confirmed my assertion... they just thought that since they managed to find her name printed years before she turned 110 (and thus asked explicitly to remain anonymous) it was sufficient for Wikipedia. And no, they did not wait to do their digging until she became the world's oldest person... they started more or less when she turned 110 (or maybe a few years later, when her age was even more significant... I'm not sure) and so they knew it long before she became the world's oldest person. There is a small, but robust fanclub around this topic, hence the ARBCOM restrictions on editing this topic and several bans. Canadian Paul 05:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hijiri 88. Into the Rift (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge/Redirect Insufficient content to justify an article. Supposed "widespread global coverage" is nothing more than the typical passing mentions, so FAILS GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Shadowowl | talk 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. Death reported worldwide. Non-notable people from Asia don't have articles written about them across continents. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion. Fine, but then show the quality sources. And you have no respect for dead people and their wishes. » Shadowowl | talk 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I added it to the article. And I would kindly ask that you strike your statement questioning my motives. It is uncalled for. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the great sources, like a blocked site, a newspaper article of which is unknown if it has ever existed, a dead link, and a subscription article. Great sources, indeed. » Shadowowl | talk 20:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a verified article, available to all, from the Los Angeles Times. Sources do not need to be in English (WP:NOENG). Sources do not need to be online to meet WP:V (Wikipedia:Offline sources(. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why an experienced editor such as yourself would make such an argument. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked up the offline source, [16], and it does NOT mention her name! As I said, she requested to be ANONYMOUS, until a group started digging for information!. It does NOT prove why she would need an article, especially because the privacy concern. Would you be fine if I posted your full name, birthdate and everything here after you died? the SAME for the Japanese article ![17]. And I've read the LA Times article, and it is about another person! Did you even care to read the refs? » Shadowowl | talk 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the Bismark article. I discounted the CTV article you mention. (and if used, looks like the citation needs to be updated). The Japanese article does indeed mention her name. My "keep" vote is solely based upon the encyclopedic notability of the topic. I have read the references. I make no claim that any particular source imparts notability by itself, and certainly the LA Times article would not be SIGCOV standing alone. Her life and death were reported by hundreds of newspapers across the globe. I am of the opinion that such coverage is highly indicative of notability, and that general readership is likely to seek encyclopedic information on the topic. You disagree, and that is fine. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare considers women's names, addresses, birthdays, etc. to be unpublished on the basis of their intentions. Those 100 newspapers are probably a lot of sensationalism and false positives due to the Romanian word chimen. The only reason her name is published is because the assholes over at GRG dug that up. » Shadowowl | talk 21:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is an asshole, is it up to WP to copy the asshole? It does NOT pass GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 21:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you tell us ? After all you recently claimed to be an asshole on your page so apparently your the expert on the matter. 208.54.36.191 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. Impressive worldwide coverage. In addition, there seems to be a consensus that persons achieving the status of oldest in the world are notable as such. gidonb (talk) 17:51, 29 September 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Clawson

AfDs for this article:
Grace Clawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E. Non-notable. Sources are GRG, an archived dead link (but the archive link is broken as well), a blocked article of the Chicago Tribune and another dead link. Includes POV trivia She remained mentally sharp until her very last day of life, enjoying talks with her family and friends. » Shadowowl | talk 16:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable for stand alone article, as per WP:BIO; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not about an event and so WP:BIO1E is irrelevant. The problem with access to sources like the Chicago Tribune is due to the GDPR which is irrelevant too. Coverage in such newspapers is adequate evidence to pass WP:GNG and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have the first keepist. She is only notable for 1 thing and should be only mentioned at a list of oldest people. Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only very sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. There is no guideline that "the oldest x" is notable either. The article is also filled with typical longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, worked, and died) which is not needed. The encyclopedic information in this article, her age, life dates, and nationality is already recorded on various lists where it is easier to view, such as List of supercentenarians from the United States. On a side note, this article is pretty much in the same exact condition it was in when it was deleted the first time. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate list(s). The question, always, with these routine nothing-special bios of old people is how best to present them, even assuming they're notable. And someone like this is best presented in a list or lists. Most of the article is fluff (names of relatives, heartwarming story of birth certificate, etc.) and what little is left is easily and compactly summarized. EEng 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Take out the original research about how someone was older but now isn't recognised and you're left with the bare basics of born, worked, moved to Canada then the US, had kids and then died. Easily handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of the type of coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:N. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO1E, WP:GNG. Happy for a redirect to the appropriate list, but we should delete the history first. SportingFlyer talk 00:43, 28 September 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. I'm not sure how this has been open for over two weeks. Going to post at ANI to clean up the copy-paste merge. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menu icon

Menu icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary removal of (more expansive) Hamburger button to replace with Menu icon. Many of the citations even call it "hamburger button," so I fail to see why the name change was needed. Xevus11 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, request a move if the title is incorrect. (And I agree, for the record, that "hamburger button" is a better title - AfD is just the wrong venue.) Enterprisey (talk!) 18:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would you recommend I do? This user is brand new, but converted a perfectly fine article to write a new one under a worse name about the same subject. I figured i'd just revert the old article and AFD this one. Xevus11 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xevus11, probably ask an admin to move it back? Or open a requested move. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Menu Icon (the more correct name for the subject). Keep redirect of "Hamburger menu" to Menu Icon. If you search internet for "Hamburger menu", yes you get lots of hits but that's part of the problem. This is a name that was given by people who didn't know what the correct name for the subject was and it just "stuck" in the popular vernacular. You can also get many hits for the more accurate "Menu Icon". So keeping the redirect is the fair way to handle this, if user searches wikipedia for "Hamburger Menu" they'll be redirected and it will help them learn the more appropriate and accurate name of the subject. Also note I copied almost everything from the "Hamburger menu" article - I just edited to remove reference to "Hamburger" as needed. In that sense it wasn't a "removal" and it isn't less expansive. I effectively "moved" the article to the correct title. I also *added* many references to "Menu Icon" to properly establish the history of the subject, most of which pre-date references to the subject as "hamburger menu". @Enterprisey I don't know of any "move" that you refer to "request a move if the title is incorrect" but that's kinda of what I was trying to accomplish here; move the content and keep a redirect in its place. Ericnoel (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:COMMONNAME may apply here. There's a difference between the topic of "any menu icon at all" (what is that, even? an icon that you click on to get a menu?) and the specific icon that is widely used in contemporary web design, and I think that we should cover only the latter, at the title "Hamburger menu". Enterprisey (talk!) 08:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 16:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. This is a naming and content dispute. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. This looks like the wrong venue for content/title discussion. I don't see a policy based reason for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and resolve naming dispute. I'm inclined to buy the claim that 'menu icon' is the formal -- and therefore preferable -- name, but this would need to be demonstrated more clearly from the technical literature. ARK (talk)
  • Keep per ARK. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:45, 8 October 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. Tone 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Witman

Dee Dee Witman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unconvinced that the subject passes WP:NPOL. She is a mayoral candidate who has not held previous political office, and all press coverage appears to be local. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither being an as yet unelected candidate for mayor nor serving as fundraiser for a gubernatorial candidate is an article-clinching notability claim in its own right, and getting a blip of local WP:BLP1E coverage for the question of whether or not she could hold both roles simultaneously is not, in and of itself, evidence that her notability in either role has somehow nationalized. The notability test on Wikipedia is not just "anybody gets an article the moment they can show any evidence of any media coverage at all" — we evaluate passage of WP:GNG not just on the number of footnotes present, but on factors like their geographic range, their depth, and whether the context of what she's getting that coverage for is of permanent ten-year test-passing national and international interest. And the coverage here doesn't pass the geographic range or 10YT tests. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but nothing here already gets her over the bar today. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat; fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 06:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable campaign operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I abstain but totally understand the arguments made here. I was myself unclear whether she met the guidelines when writing this article. Thank you Bearcat for the very helpful explanation! RIfoodie (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being udnerstanding RIfoodie! Around election season (no matter the country), we get a lot of candidates who want to make Wikipedia articles, so we've added extra notability guidelines for politicians. I wish Ms. Whitman the best in her campaign! Bkissin (talk) 17:30, 25 September 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius College, Messina

St. Ignatius College, Messina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jesuit promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: Does it offer distinct degrees? If its students graduate from some main "St. Ignatius College" not in Messina, then it not a separate school. If it does offer its own degrees, and is separately accredited and run and so on, then it is a distinct secondary or higher school and we keep those. Hey, drop the anti-Jesuit tone. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep includes a high school and primary school, combined with verifying references Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous WP:RS such as (Wise, John E. “Jesuit School Beginnings.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, 1961, pp. 28–31. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/367197.) assert that :"The first fully constituted college for lay students was founded at Messina, Sicily, in 1548." Knowing that in the 1400 and thought 1535 (when the Henry's Reformation made them not comparable insitutions with Messina,) Oxford and Cambridge admitted boys as young as ten - 12-year-olds were routine - although the modal age of admission was mid-teens. Boys not intended for holy orders left in their late teens, but if you wanted a bachelors degree, you stayed longer. In other words, Catholic "lay" Catholic institutions like Messina, Oxford and Cambridge served a BOTH what we now call secondary and tertiary institutions. I am guessing that this secondary school and othe University of Messina - both Jesuit - may share a common origin as daughter institutions of the old, Jesuit College, Messina, founded in 1548 and leveled in an earthquake in 1908.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:00, 4 October 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. Tone 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali

Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is for upcoming show that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Minimal references that don't go in depth. This probably should be moved to Draft space for now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and remind creator about the need for articles to meet the notability criteria. I have just draftified one of their unsourced articles. This is not the first time. Possible CoI editor as has just reinserted some horrible puff stuff at Siddharth Kumar Tewary which I removed. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:10, 24 September 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. Due to low participation, the article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rerum Novarum Centre

Rerum Novarum Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to fail WP:GNG but it also operates in languages that I do not master. Largely based on related sources and plain listings. The Banner talk 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 14:42, 20 September 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. Due to low participation, the article may be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND. Mz7 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hembree (band)

Hembree (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. Doing the background music for an Apple commercial does not meet WP:NMUSIC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 14:37, 20 September 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. Tone 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Kelly

Siobhan Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite good faith search, unable to find sources indicating this actor meets GNG, ANYBIO, or ENT. Bongomatic 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG (the sources in the article and elsewhere for example do not seem to represent SIGCOV in independent sources. The BelfastVibe source for example seems to relate to another person, and the subject here is only mentioned in passing. And the agency bio piece seems to be of the kind that all represented actors might have). Also doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR (roles, as listed in the linked IMDB entry for example, seem to be relatively minor). As per nom, a quick search doesn't return any other material SIGCOV examples. Guliolopez (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing might be a small issue, but the TV and film credits - especially the high profile film - conveys notability. Sleeper4000 01:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Sleeper4000 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for vandalism. Bongomatic 04:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She needs to have multiple prominent roles in notable production per WP:NACTOR, but the actress appear to have only minor roles or appear in minor productions. She needs more significant roles first before she can qualify for an article. Hzh (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sleeper4000 appears to misunderstand the notability guidelines and requirements. --Bejnar (talk) 04:29, 27 September 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Great Mistake

A Great Mistake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite good faith media search, I do not find evidence that this film meets the GNG or NF Bongomatic 14:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only sources covering this topic are IMDB. —Mythdon 03:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete – iMDB is not a reliable source, nor is Vimeo. Appears to have some original research but maybe I didn't check all the sources. Either maintenance work (and lots of it) or delete. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N due to lack of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 28 September 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. Tone 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me or the Dog

Me or the Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite good faith media search, I do not find evidence that this film meets the GNG or NF. Bongomatic 14:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing is an issue, but the festival inclusions would seem to convey notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, please review WP:NF and in particular WP:NFO, which infers notability if
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
Inclusion in festivals around the time of initial release is not evidence of notability. Footnote 3 shows that even minor awards from major festivals, or grand prizes from minor festivals is insufficient. Bongomatic 05:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not convinced that the film meets WP:GNG. In addition to this, the creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely for promotional editing and socking disruption. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kind Tennis Fan. Also most Google search results about Me or the Dog are actually about a (different) British television show, further establishing this article's lack of notability. —Mythdon 03:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing to have the substantive coverage required by the WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 04:45, 27 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyTunes

FoxyTunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Receives only passing mentions in reliable sources. Previously declined PROD for the reason that it does contain mentions in sources, but those are insignificant/unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the little controversy at ANI I'm not gonna !vote here, but I did find a great source about Foxytunes: [18]. There's also [19] but the Haaretz article actually goes into significant detail. However, these are both about Yahoo acquiring Foxytunes so there needs to be coverage of other events to fulfill WP:SUSTAINED. The other sources I could dig up on Foxytunes were a few short Lifehacker articles and short reviews. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was Comment(leaning towards maybe delete, consider this a keep if stronger sources are found) Initial looking found a few passing mentions in books ( mostly among list of suggested extensions to install to firefox ). As noted by FenixFeather, there are a few articles on the Yahoo Acquisition and termination of FoxyTunes: TechCrunch on rumors purchase by Yahoo [20], Softpedia on Yahoo dropping FoxyTunes[21], Gizmodo related acquisition to Yahoo's music service termination[22], and some such as this AP article (link is version syndicated into Business Insider) talking about a wave Israeli startups being acquired along with Waze by Google[23]. I've also seen the lifehacker articles as also mentioned above only other thing I saw in my search of news archives was a blog but on owned by ZDNet, Mashable talking about launching of a feature[24]. Ars Technica had a brief mention of it in relation to Yahoo and Rhapsody working together.[25]. Haven't seen anything really that talked about FoxyTunes as FoxyTunes. PaleAqua (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support redirecting (maybe merging) to Yahoo!, ideally to a section that talks about acquisitions. PaleAqua (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to keep as per additional sources and improvements to the article. PaleAqua (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment My understanding is FoxyTunes had a contested PROD on 2 January 2018 for reasons given by nom, it was declined PROD on 19 September 2018 as it had already had a contested PROD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my book I thought FoxyTunes was heading for an expired PROD on 19 September and I was actually not really bothered but the cunning article escaped. I have found a PCW Review from May 2007.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am beginning to wonder if this should be a keep? Significant enough to be acquired by Yahoo then run as a brand for 4 or 5 years ... Has international versions. On the opposing side I personally cannot remember nothing about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: now moving to keep. I have improved the article to give the body a little more content and substance. A little more could yet be added from the existing references. On balance I am also minded this had some form of impact over a wide geographical area over a few years. I believe there are sufficent references for the notability requirement. There are some useful wikilinks to other parts of the encylopedia including web browser, toolbox and media player (software). As far as I am aware value would be lost in any plausible merge that I am aware of so I would now be reluctant to compromise to that option. So I am moved to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request non-admins closure. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources have been found so now two or three RS so exceeds WP:GNG Merge and redirect to Yahoo or a sub article of. It may be notable/borderline N in itself and the source [26] claims it was one of Firefox's most popular add-ons. ... 8 million users... , but latterly the notability came from Yahoo. Certainly notability does not stop even when discontinued per WP:NTEMP. Widefox; talk 00:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: which "sources" are you referring to? The MacWorld review is literally a capsule review, which we can't use to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improved there's two assertions of notability - 1. software that's been used worldwide by over 8 million people (on all platforms) 2. Yahoo! topic (the fact that it's now dead software is irrelevant for notability per WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Even if WP:N wasn't satisfied, considering it brutally as a product of Yahoo! it would be merge/redirected into Yahoo! not deleted. Doing that would lose the whole backstory, more so that merging the internal only Google Toolbar into Google. For readers it may be best to consider as WP:SPINOUT to keep Yahoo! from having WP:UNDUE while keeping the usefulness of the info in the article. 2. may not need to meet separate N per SPINOUT/that essay I quoted in one of your other AfDs. So 1. - does it meet WP:GNG anyway? yes, it's had significant, worldwide, sustained coverage, including sole articles on it in Haaretz, Ynet, Ghacks, Softonic, Softpedia, combined with significant superlatives or listings in general reading top tier sources like The Daily Telegraph through Wired to lots of computer industry ones etc etc - per the article today. There's enough sources for BLP aspects, and it can make Class C easily so it's not a WP:PERMASTUB. I wouldn't classify being mentioned in an article called "The Best Free Software (2007)", "Review: Top 10 Mozilla Firefox Extensions", "Firefox 3: Top ten extensions" as a passing mention either, no, it counts for notability due to many of them. I was wrong - there is abundant coverage and yet more exist WP:NEXIST. Per 2., as Yahoo! topic, products which aren't notable themselves they would get merged anyhow, not deleted. We have more OK sources to build an article here than there are in the magazine sources etc we use. Seems solid to me on all fronts for a proper topic with history, good work User:Djm-leighpark and User:PaleAqua may want to check the found sources. Widefox; talk 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      "significant superlatives or listings in general reading top tier sources" has nothing to do with GNG, and plenty of sources you were referring to are routine press release announcements. "may not need to meet separate N" is not true at all, see WP:NOTINHERITED. wumbolo ^^^ 17:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered which 3 full articles in RS are enough by themselves, passes GNG. Some of the other 17 currently in the article add to more than those 3. I'm sorry we don't agree but I'm sure other's would like to evaluate them, and any others they may find, so we'll have to agree to differ. (see WP:NOTINHERITED - it not as black and white as asserted, some articles are allowed, not that my view is based on that, it passes GNG) Widefox; talk 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am minded I would also add Rankin. In my opinion WP:NOTINHERITED's a mess ... surely designed to obfusticate my head within the totality of its situation in its article and diversions to elsewhere: but I seemed to have come away with some sort of takeaway that parent to child ... not always and child to parent ... rarely ... and life is better spent simply doing content and citing. From my viewpoint which its not always universal FoxyTunes operated as an independent brand entity and any merge to parent can end in torment in those circumstances. We are also talking about the software not the organisation. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my main point is there's enough sources for GNG. There also seems to be an over strict and incorrect interpretation of GNG/RS at these AfDs that sources must be large and exclusively about the topic. I quote GNG but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It may be a quick rule-of-thumb for editors to consider the threshold for GNG is about finding 2 (or more) main topic articles. Here 2.5 sources are evaluated by an editor "There is no such thing as 0.5 sources. It's either 0 or 1 (and every publication is limited to 1)." In terms of number of sources yes, in terms of amount of coverage absolutely not per policy, it's perfectly fine to consider smaller sources as being fractional coverage as that fits with policy. Sources can't just be dismissed as 0 as they're half as useful in coverage per policy. It's not binary. That's wrong, period. We have an overwhelming abundance of reliable sources by any normal standard here which per GNG do count. That means that we have unambiguously significant coverage in this AfD (Minor point is things aren't as black and white and there's alternatives WP:ATD, SPINOUT for the benefit of readers. WP:DOM essay seems appropriate considering this/these AfDs.) I think it would help if Wumbolo spelled out which sources they are excluding, and why, and how that compares to other AfDs/articles.Widefox; talk 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vastly improved since article was nominated for AfD with 25 sources added, I am more than happy to say this now passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 27 September 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hearthis.at

Hearthis.at (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject at this time. Searches return thousands of hits, but they all appear to be the most passing possible of mentions of their url, like here, and truckloads of hits for the Dallas Observer, but only because they've embedded files in hundreds of pages.

The source currently in the article is more along the lines of what we're looking for, but even that described the site as "minuscule", noting that nine plays on one of the news station's playlist reached the top ten in the genre.

Overall looks like WP:TOOSOON, and the absence of a de.wiki article for a German founded website doesn't bode well either. GMGtalk 14:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with assessment as WP:TOOSOON. It does look like an up and coming competitor to Soundcloud, but results are just "Top X alternatives to Soundcloud" type articles, that usually mention that this service is "little known" and has few users at the moment. When more dedicated coverage turns up, I think this article will be worth creating. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 00:44, 28 September 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. Tone 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with Vulkan support

List of games with Vulkan support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason List of games with DirectX 12 support was deleted along with all the other DirectX support lists. It's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Better suited for categories. See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with DirectX 12 support. TarkusABtalk 14:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:51, 20 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammad Safi

AfDs for this article:
Hammad Safi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable columnist and blogger. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Only 3 sources, and they merely mention him as an 11 years old professor. Even considering the age, notability is not met because all the sources mention about the same thing, "his age". The previous nomination for deletion was closed as "keep" although the voters didn't talk about how the article meets Wikipedia Guidelines. The only reason for their votes was that it passes GNG, although it clearly doesn't. How is the coverage about just one single event enough?Knightrises10 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was working on an AfD nomination for this article when I noticed another one had already been created, so I'll add my rationale here: A biography about a child; there are a few sources but I do not believe that he meets WP:GNG yet. Of the three sources, two are based on the same text (not sure if it is a press release, but they cite the same people using the exact same phrasing), and the third is a very brief interview of the subject. That does not amount to significant coverage. He is not a university lecturer, as claimed in some earlier versions of the article; the University of Spoken English and Computer Science is a language school which uses Safi quite prominently in their advertising (it seems that he he is part of the staff for their programme for children) but it's not an institution of tertiary education. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable columnist, motivational speaker and blogger. Vorbee (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I may even argue a Speedy jeep. He meets criteria. Just look at the over 2000 news article mentions here. I went through the first few pages. He has more than enough coverage, his age makes him notable. There maybe only 3 references in the article, does not mean that there are only 3 sources. The article needs to be expanded. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What 2000 news articles would that be? When I click that link I'm taken to a page with 96 hits, and the 12 first links I clicked on were verbatim or slightly re-hashed versions of the same press release that's already in the article (that's also easily seen by the fact that the same press kit photos are used in most of them). If you have specific sources that meet WP:RS, by all means provide them here or add them to the article, but please don't link to a page of search hits, it's not a viable argument. And being young is not part of any notability criteria on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGreatWikiLord: Is there any guideline which says age makes a person notable? Please let me know too. Secondly, all the news sources mention just a single thing. They are written almost same. Thirdly, I can assure you being a Pakistani myself, the videos about that child were circulated as a publicity stunt. You are free to expand the article, but I am sure you won't find anything which will make him pass GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightrises10: @Bonadea: If you click this, you will see over 2000 hits. At least I do when I click it. He has enough coverage. It has nothing to do with Pakistan or age, as long as there is coverage he is notable. There IS coverage, hence notable. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same link as before, so my previous comment stands. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a screenshot, not sure why you are not seeing the over 2000 hits. It says "about 2,500 hits"So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't always display identically for different people. I probably get the exact same hits, but without Google's well-documented estimation error: when you get a huge number of hits in a search, the first thing you should always do is go to the last search page (sometimes a multi-step process) and there you will see the actual number of hits. My guess is that I get the correct number, 96, since my settings specify 100 hits per page - if I'd had 20 I would probabiy have seen Google's wild guess. And that's one reason why referring to a Google search page is not very useful in a deletion debate. (I took the liberty of making the image smaller so it doesn't clutter the page). My previous comment stands; reprints of a PR are not independent sources (and not news articles), and note that many of the hits are not in fact about Safi at all, but links displaying his name. --bonadea contributions talk 05:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Search engine test. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer convinced. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what we seem to disagree on here is whether the sources can in fact be called WP:SECONDARY. There are three sources currently in the article, where the first one is an AFP press release published in dawn.com; the second one is from ibtimes.co.in and clearly based on the same press release, using the same press kit photos and quoting the same people we saw in the dawn.com source; while the third is a brief promotional blurb written in a sensationalistic tone. In my WP:BEFORE search I looked through quite a few of the search hits, but everything I found was either evidently (to me, at least) churnalism based on the same AFP press release - translated into other languages, which doesn't make it any less of a press release - or brief notices. There is no doubt that this is a talented and charismatic person, but there is also no doubt that there is a marketing team behind him, and when we are talking about a child, I think the requirements for actual secondary sources needs to be extra high. If there are in fact multiple independent sources about him, it would be good if those could be mentioned here or added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: If it is true the articles in the second two sources are based on the press release, I'm inclined to agree with you. I have seen other AfDs with similar characteristics, and I question the ability of the journalists to be completely objective on such reporting. On the other hand, it seems to me that the acceptance of the material in the press release is a deliberate editorial judgment by the secondary source, including any fact-checking required before publishing in the same way any other material is published. That is what inclines my choice above to keep, as it still appears to me the WP:GNG requirement is met. Could you give me two or more other examples at AfD where there were two (or better, even more) reliable secondary sources that were so heavily based on press releases that we rejected the Wiki article's notability? Or is there a discussion anywhere where we take churnalism into account in our decisions on notability. My feeling is that if material based on press releases is a reason to reject secondary sources, we should probably include that in WP:GNG and/or WP:RS if that is going to be the basis of our decisions. I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: I am travelling this weekend and will respond properly in a couple of days' time when I've had time to look them up, but the short answer is yes, I have seen that argument carried successfully in AfDs - in fact that's where I first heard the term "churnalism". --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I look forward to it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got the answer from DGG here: User_talk:DGG#Question_on_Notability_/_AfD_--_secondary_sources_based_on_a_press_release (permalink). It's under WP:NCORP (search for "press release") I have changed my vote to delete. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightrises10: I pose the same question to you. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea. All I can see is a bursts of churnalism type news coverage within June 2018 which does not indicate notability. Policy says, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on low profile individuals. Saqib (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find this paid promotional piece on him in a not so reliable online news website. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG.[27][28][29] Also agree with rebuttals by David Tornheim. This is nomination failed WP:BEFORE because more than 3 sources have significantly covered the subject. GenuineArt (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GenuineArt: Will you please read what Bonadea pointed out? He has expalined thoroughly. It is you who needs to read about Guidelines. Knightrises10 (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did and it makes no sense since there is no involvement of any "marketing team". Your nomination was misleading since more than three sources provided significant coverage contrary to your claim "Only 3 sources, and they merely mention him". GenuineArt (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GenuineArt: You even need to read or understand the nomination again. they merely mention him as "an 11 years old professor". Those copied-from-Dawn press releases only tell that he is a kid professor, motivational speaker,etc and nothing else notable. I won't even consider them seperate sources! Knightrises10 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightrises10: I pose the same question to you as I did to Bonadea above. I believe the guidelines as presently written do not make any exception for secondary sources that restate material that can be traced to press releases. If there is such an exception, I might be willing to change my vote. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, Dawn reported about Safi in June 2018 where as others like ARY News reported about him in 2017. Dawn is just another source that has provided him significant coverage. GenuineArt (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there is no involvement of any "marketing team" - yes there is, because a) the language schools he is connected to uses him in their marketing, and b) the exact same PR pictures are used in almost every source - very obvious press kit. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the language and pics are the same, it is a reasonable assumption it is a result of the work of a PR team, but the question I raise above, which Bonadea says he will respond to, is whether writing in a secondary source which is clearly based on a press release is sufficient to eliminate or diminish its significance in our notability requirements. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS The only reason he is mentioned in the news is that he is a 11 year old kid giving lectures. The kind of "man bites dog" novelty that is expected in a newspaper. The google hits isnt a valid argument. Some of the sources does appear promotional.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bonadea and DBigXray.∯WBGconverse 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. Everything is either a frank press release or is based on a press release.
1/The reason press releases do not show notability is straightforward: they are not independent.: the person, or his press agent, or his speak bureau, says whatever they care to. The reason material based on press releases is not reliable for showing notability is pretty much the same: the source took what the publicist said, and repeated it. When a newspaper or similar source does this, it destroys the presumption that what that source says is reliable on that subject. When 2 or 3 sources use exactly the same words, it doesn't make for stronger evidence, it makes each of them much weaker. This is not based only on my own personal opinion, it is our standard practice, unchallenged on thousands of AfD discussions for many years.
2/Furthermore. it is rational for us to be especially demanding in terms of reliable sources for people whose notability is that of a a motivational speaker, life coach, or blogger --these are occupations that are largely based on publicity, where there is rarely any other criterion than how much publicity they get--and that shows not their importance, but the quality of their press agent.
3/And there is yet another factor: extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources: extraordinarily strong sources, not extraordinarily weak ones. . That an 11 year old is actually notable in these professions would be extraordinary. Dawn even called him a "professor" -- the likelihood of that being hype is much higher than of it having any connection to actual `notability or significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 3 October 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. Tone 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Shrivastav

Ankita Shrivastav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional artcile, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 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. Tone 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sugapuff

Sugapuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional. Does not meet GNG. Sources include a deadlink, coverage from an outlet that employed him, and an interview on BBC Asian. BEFORE mainly brings up items from his YouTube channel. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. The first source may or may not count, as it has only one paragraph about him in an article about three people (although it may be mentioning him for something notable; I'm not entirely sure), the second is a primary source, and the third is an audio clip which is not available. Searching elsewhere finds little that is not primary or extremely minor. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:30, 27 September 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. If anyone would like the article userfied, let me know Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Malaysia to East Timor

List of ambassadors of Malaysia to East Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly do. See WP:OTHERSTUFFTheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia has a resident ambassador to East Timor. Does meet WP:LISTN. Panji Keramat (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a list is ipso facto notable because it has content? I'm writing list of pimples on my curvy pink butt as I speak.TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject isn't notable. The list contains only red-links to NN entries. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that the people on the list are notable, and as such there's no purpose served by having a list of them. Furthermore, even if the entries were worthwhile information, there is certainly not enough of it to justify a standalone article. Vanamonde (talk) 20:16, 12 October 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. Tone 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naga MC

Naga MC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Won a relatively minor youth award - some coverage of this win and his subsequent summer vacation. Not close to passing WP:MUSICBIO. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 16:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GMGtalk 20:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gardners Books

Gardners Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Open to be proven wrong on this one. There are certainly sources available, but basically all of them as far as I can tell are passing mentions or routine announcements. I'm just not really seeing a good argument for WP:CORPDEPTH. Best I'm seeing is something like this, which is really no better than a press release, and this, which ain't bad, but it seems like it was copy/pasted from somewhere else given the egregious formatting errors. Although I couldn't tell you from where. GMGtalk 12:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews, GBooks etc. Largest book wholesaler in the United Kingdom, therefore exceptionally notable. Seems to have published books that have received quite a lot of citations, judging from GScholar. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be nit picky, but...what coverage? What sources are there with any depth to write an article with? GMGtalk 10:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As this is a book wholesaler, I took a quick look on Publisher's Weekly and found a few articles on it. I also found a bunch of articles on the UK's Bookseller site. I also learned that they launched other products/companies such as the hive.co.uk and ebook products such as Blio. Auldhouse (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone link to one of these sources? I'm happy to withdraw, but I really didn't find jack in like 20 minutes. Maybe I'm just bad at searching. GMGtalk 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is one of several in first page of Google news search link. Browse also the ones there about 100 new jobs in Eastbourne, and about the Gardners Hive, say. --Doncram (talk) 19:24, 24 September 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. Tone 13:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Kariuki

Evans Kariuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable preacher not meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The organizations he leads likewise don't meet the notabililty guidelines, receiving no applicable coverage under WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article currently has only two references One cites a local article that does not mention him, just his wife, and does not support the inline text. The other is a non-independt reference, being a citation to the homepage of his own Firebrand School of Ministry website. Most of his hits on Google are not independent (Facebook, Youtube, Instgram, Amazon, his church, etc.), or press releases. I did find two news stories centered on him. One appeared in the Nairobi News, basically a police report on him being "attacked by youths after he visited a voter registration centre" in the Mathare slums of Nairobi. I should note that notability is not inherited, and being the son of a former member of parliament (Bishop Margaret Wanjiru) does not confer notability. The second was a 2017 story about him entitled "Inspiration Friday" published in 2017 on ghafla, a Kenyan news site, here. But a single substantive story does not create notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 27 September 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. Tone 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited

Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see any significant coverage about the company, that manages to make it pass WP:NORG but somehow, I am not confident enough about my search.Trivial mentions are located. ∯WBGconverse 08:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets primary criteria for WP:NORG and passes WP:GNG. I believe it's from your search, in addition to this it has also won some recognized award. A search here brings out several results and also here. ShunDream (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ShunDream, news-pieces, please. ∯WBGconverse 09:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable that ShunDream has not provided and references. The number of Google Hits is also not a reliable indicator of notability and not an acceptable argument for a Keep !vote. HighKing++ 18:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most references are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. The awards also are awarded to hundreds of companies across various categories each year and fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:44, 20 September 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. Tone 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boniface Ramsey

Boniface Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Boniface Ramsey is not notable, aside from the fact that he sent a number of letters to Catholic bishops warning them about the predations of Theodore McCarrick. Ramsey's involvement in this saga is documented in detail in the Theodore Edgar McCarrick article, and also appears in the articles Gabriel Montalvo Higuera, Leonardo Sandri, Seán Patrick O'Malley. Ramsey's role in the McCarrick saga is notable, and has been adequately documented in these articles. But Ramsey is not notable otherwise, and therefore having his own article is unnecessary. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Although the nominator has, along with a handful of others, made extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia regarding the abuse scandal in the Church, I respectfully disagree with the belief that this article should be deleted. Individuals can be discussed widely in other articles, but if their importance rises to a certain level, then it can still become necessary for them to have their own articles. In Ramsey's case, I think it does. He has been the single most important figure in blowing the whistle on McCarrick in the Church for over two decades. While his activities in reporting McCarrick are discussed elsewhere, especially the McCarrick article, they could be covered in greater detail here than that article may allow. It would also be helpful to include personal background information so that the reader can better understand who he is and why he took on such a role. Trying to do that at any of the articles would go beyond their scope. The article should be expanded, and I feel that this is a better course than deleting it. I might be able to help with expansion should the article be kept, but I'll have to see how my schedule looks. Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This article could certainly use fixing too. 192.139.232.230 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect back to section in McCarrick article. This is not a biography; it's just a one sentence identification followed by a partial narration of the larger train of events. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't, and his role in the scandal is not a biography. At present what we have is a name and a position, and that's pretty much it. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His role in the developing scandal is very important. Considering the New York Times Magazine had the story on McCarrick sexually assaulting and abusing seminarians in 2012 and killed the story for political and cultural reasons, there is a lot more to what is going on her than has been well reported.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG, and I'm not entirely sure what "is not a biography" means when it comes to specific Wikipedia policy. There are plenty of stubs on Wikipedia that refer to why a person is notable and do not include a myriad of other details; the lack of sheer quantity of content in an entry isn't a reason for deletion. Isingness (talk) 22:44, 24 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Molesworth

Mark Molesworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A CV of a working cinematographer, with much namedropping about awards but none actually credited to the subject. The closest thing to a reliable source is a New York Times wedding announcement to the now-deleted Donna Bertaccini. Calton | Talk 03:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just a reminder: the creator of this article, Missvangie, has a declared conflict of interest. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, the wedding announcement is really the only the reliable, in-depth reference. The others either do not mention the subject or do so only in passing. For example, this website used as a reference mentions nothing about Molesworth. Perhaps it lends itself to notability of the film, but certainly not to the person. And notability is not inherited. Overall, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi everyone! On the article's Talk Page I argued for Molesworth's notability due to his awards, but I had trouble sourcing them since the award websites were down. I found an alternative reference and added his awards on the main space. That should be sufficient to keep his page. Also, as an aside, I found several pages of cinematographers on Wikipedia that are similar to Molesworth's. (extensive careers but no indicted awards or notability) I was wondering why those were permitted to exist without notability or other flags. I kept them at the article's talk page as well. Missvangie (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found several pages of cinematographers on Wikipedia that are similar to Molesworth's. (extensive careers but no indicted awards or notability) I was wondering why those were permitted to exist without notability or other flags
  • I argued for Molesworth's notability due to his awards
  • What awards? All the name-dropping of awards you did were not for Molesworth, but for shows he worked on -- see Notability is not inherited -- not to mention they were all journalism-related, not regarding technical achievements.
  • I added his awards on the main space
  • You mean the bit about a "Cine Golden Eagle" and an "International Monitor Award", neither of which you explain who awarded them nor why they are in any way significant. Which is not surprising, since all you did was cut and paste from the website of a manufacturer of camera equipment [30], using the "interview" to sell their merchandise. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't want to have that conversation about the other cinematographer entries I've referenced because they point to a cross section of cinematographers who have wiki entries with far, far less reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work, than I have easily supplied in Molesworth's entry which demonstrates, fact sources, Molesworth's clear and unequivocal notability. You may not want to have that conversation, you may want to shut down the significance of that conversation, but I will continue to point that out as an issue. It is not an "irrelevant" one. Quite the contrary. Especially when you make comments that suggest just because you don't want to acknowledge my valid and troubling points of a double or triple standard by you and/or wikipedia, you refuse to address a serious issue that all wiki editors should be concerned about. Wikipedia must strive to have fairness and accountability, otherwise, it's difficult to validate its legitimacy. After all, wikipedia is based on a democratic process not a dictatorial one. Others have in fact been included for cinematographer entries with far less sourced notability across the board, than I have proven with Molesworth.

Regarding your comments on inherited notability: I agree. No, notability is not inherited. There's been no attempt to suggest that as such other than from you. Emmy awards and the like for best film are given for the quality and accomplishments across the board for a film. You have no best picture award for a film journalistically or otherwise with third rate cinematography. It just does not happen. Full stop. If you think it does, please provide sources for a case in point. You demonstrate a basic lack of understanding for the film and television industry by making such a comment. I've included the films that have won awards solely to prove Molesworth is a highly sought after, notable cinematographer to consistently be hired for the outstanding quality of his photography for filmmakers, producers, directors, and broadcasters the world-over. The award winning documentaries he has helmed prove that notability. --Missvangie | Talk 03:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't want to have that conversation about the other cinematographer entries I've referenced because they point to a cross section of cinematographers who have wiki entries with far, far less reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work
Clearly you didn't bother reading the link I provided: this is a discussion about Mark Molesworth, and talking about other cinematographers is irrelevant to this article. So no, I'm not going to bother engaging on that.
All right, I was curious and looked. Dear God, you put TAK FUJIMOTO on your list? Cinematographer for Silence of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense, among many, many others? Winner of a Primetime Emmy for Cinematography for John Adams? The article with the great big National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Cinematography template listing his win for Devil in a Blue Dress? Just how desperate ARE you save this article? --Calton | Talk 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work, than I have easily supplied in Molesworth's entry which demonstrates, fact sources, Molesworth's clear and unequivocal notability
"Reputable" "Unequivocal"? YouTube and Vimeo links to his work? WorldCat catalog pages? Award pages which don't even use his name? A camera-equipment manufacturer using an "interview" as an endorsement of their products? A standard, unbylined wedding announcement, which are submitted by the wedding party? You have provided, near as I can tell, NO reliable sources whatsoever nor anything that actually argues for Molesworth's notability.
The award winning documentaries he has helmed prove that notability.
He did not "helm" them, he was the camera operator. And not only is notability not inherited, the awards -- including the Emmys you namedrop -- are JOURNALISM awards, and imply NOTHING about technical achievement. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made it all the way to #9 with no debatable response to my argument? Wow. That's telling.Take away the Tak Fujimoto link. No problem. What's left? Now let's address all 12 of the other/remaining DoP entries. My point remains the same. You base your whole argument in response to me on one of the 13 that I listed? Seriously? Talk about desperate. I've removed him. There are 12 remaining. Have at it. Because if even one of those entries ends up remaining, the argument about equal standards and justice for all here on Wiki remains. Minor point worth noting, the Tak Fujimoto page mentions no awards, neither does it have proper sourcing. According to wikipedia standards, that article should have several flags.

Vimeo links? Youtube links? There aren't any of those sources on the current edited entry. You are mistaken. Are you seriously suggesting a library source such as WorldCat is not a legitimate source to prove either authorship or notable involvement in a documentary film or television series? Because now that is rich. (Just don't supply WorldCat sourcing on Wikipedia. Their editors don't recognize library sourcing.) Good lord, Wikipedia would be laughed out of any research University. More to the point, I've never based this entry wholly on his award winning ability *for himself*. You keep attempting to bring it back to that argument. I've been supplying proof of his notability as a cinematographer for other legitimate reasons, that you choose to ignore or attempt to conflate, but that hold his notability. Clearly he is a world-renowned DoP. The sourcing I provide shows the depth and breadth of his work for filmmakers and broadcasters the world over. He is notable, because he has a reputation internationally as a Director of Photography helming, yes helming, award winning documentary films, and for his extraordinary body of work. Additionally, If you are the only DoP/cameraman listed on a documentary film you *are* the Director of Photography even if a credit may say "camera" for the cinematographer. It's equivalent to saying "I'm a dentist". Does that not make you a doctor? Hardly. In the documentary filmmaking industry the credit can say photography / camera / cinematographer / Director of Photography. That's a fact of the industry. Similarly, if you are the only photographer noted on the credits of a documentary film, he/she shot the whole film. You are the Director of Photography. You are the one solely responsible for directing the ultimate camera shots and lighting set ups across the board especially when there is no designed lighting designer. You also conveniently ignore all the reputable and yes unequivocal sourcing supplied such as BBC, PBS, BFI, The NY Times articles links, The New York Press Club. Missvangie | Talk 2:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You made it all the way to #9 with no debatable response to my argument?
No, I scanned your list and your desperately bogus and ill-informed choice leapt out at me. Something I was expecting, by the way, which is why I did it. And as for your "argument": for the THIRD time, because it is completely and utterly irrelevant to THIS article. There is NOTHING to address, because there IS no argument to adddress.
He is notable, because he has a reputation internationally as a Director of Photography helming, yes helming, award winning documentary films
A "reputation" for which you've provided NO PROOF or even indication, not to mention your telling of straight-up falsehoods even within your framing: "helming" means DIRECTING. He's not a film or video director, he's the guy who operates the damned camera under the supervision of the ACTUAL director of each film/video.
You also conveniently ignore all the reputable and yes unequivocal sourcing
"Unequivocal" appears to be yet another word you like to misuse. In fact, not only is almost every single one of those sources mere listings of credits, many don't even mention Molesworth at all. And the New York Times "article" is a wedding announcement: it's not an article in any way, shape, or form, it's a reader-submitted announcement of an upcoming wedding, written by the someone in the wedding party. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful about cavalierly denigrating the work of a highly published and regarded film critic's body of work. Sean Malin is an American freelance journalist, who is widely known for his insightful and compelling reviews. He is an accredited journalist at all the major U.S. film festivals every year and as a result of the foregoing, is well known in the film and television community, as an accomplished and discerning film critic. He has published film reviews and interviews with both domestic and international filmmakers and as such makes CineMalin a go to film site for the film and television community. Simply because you may only be learning of CineMalin or Sean Malin, it does not mean he and CineMalin are not highly reputable and highly regarded, and his writing very well known. You've made comments that are not truthful and simply ignorant. Sean Malin is based in Los Angeles and has a significant and serious body of published work if you bothered to actually do the research for the journalist you are talking about. He is a graduate of the prestigious University of Texas at Austin's Masters of Arts program in Media Studies for Film, Television, and Radio and has written often for The Austin Chronicle, Independent Film Project, and Paste, as just a few examples. His significant body of published work is very easy to source. -- Missvangie (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Malin...is widely known...
No he isn't. And the blog -- and a Blogspot blog, from the look of the design -- shows no evidence that the "film and television community" even knows he exists, based on his massive Twitter numbers, all 553 followers. Care to provide some evidence of this regard? --Calton | Talk 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure most definitely I'll comment. You clearly didn't even bother to source Malin's body of work at even just the Austin Chronicle: https://www.austinchronicle.com/authors/sean-l-malin/. This took no time to source. This alone puts your ridiculous comments to rest. I've only sourced one of the many publications he has written for and continues to write for. I won't waste more time disproving your false statements above given that they stem from your disparaging imagination and are not based in fact. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment In response to the statement "Are you seriously suggesting a library source such as WorldCat is not a legitimate source to prove either authorship or notable involvement in a documentary film or television series?" - Yes, WorldCat is a legitimate source to prove authorship or involvement. However, simply being able to verify a statement does not indicate notability, and the discussion here is about notability. I don't think anyone is doubting the veracity of the information you've included in the article; the topic of discussion here is to whether that information meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. As I stated above, I do not believe that it does. I understand that can feel frustrating, especially as you are being paid to write the article. However, that is simply not enough. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two new sources (a Connecticut news source and a NY Press Club profile) detailing Molesworth's awards. Those should account for his notability, under WP:ANYBIO. I hope you can read it again, with new citations and all, and let me know about suggestions to improve it. Thanks. Missvangie (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, did you actually LOOK at said references?

One could say the same to you, Calton. The one who clearly does not LOOK carefully at said references is you, because you deleted a perfectly valid reference for Molesworth's award-winning photography. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A news publication is running a feature piece on Mark Molesworth and his cinematography that will run within 72 hours. I will post that as soon as it is live. I've been informed that there will be others as he has been interviewed over the past few weeks by a variety of journalists as a result of the Brooklyn Museum's Basquiat premiere screening he attended. There's also a recent New York Press Club article about him, which I linked in the article. -- Missvangie (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So he was hard at work schmoozing the attendees, trying to place stories, eh? Interviews are not really going to help prove notability, especially when their purpose is so transparent. --Calton | Talk 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fantasy scenario of yours. It has no basis in truth. The Basquiat film's U.S. premiere at the Brooklyn Museum was on August 30th. Molesworth was in fact approached by a number of journalists for interviews that night, and since based on his cinematography for the film. Why is that problematic for you? I'll tell you why. It's because it doesn't fit in to your personal narrative or agenda that you've crafted out of thin air in your head. You spread falsehoods to disparage and denigrate. It is also worth noting that it is not acceptable professional behavior to troll people off of Wikipedia on their Twitter feed merely because you don't like their work being cited here. That is bordering on harassment. You clearly created a Twitter account precisely to do just that to Mr. Malin. (It is obvious because you have zero followers on Twitter.) It has been noted that you publicly accused Malin; yes, a well known, highly regarded, well-published journalist, of being paid to write his Molesworth interview. That simply is not true and did not happen. It is also an improper move on your part. It's really off base. You are behaving out of bounds on this, and that should be of note and concern for all Wiki editors. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't even bother to source Malin's body of work at even just the Austin Chronicle
The Austin Chronicle is a local alt-weekly that he's contributed some reviews and arts round-ups, a far cry from your claim of "well known in the film and television community". And how about that massive Twitter following one expects from anyone someone "well known in the film and television community", all 553 of them?
Molesworth was in fact approached by a number of journalists for interviews that night
Really. And you know this HOW? And you can document this HOW?
It's because it doesn't fit in to your personal narrative or agenda that you've crafted out of thin air in your head. You spread falsehoods to disparage and denigrate.
You should look up "psychological projection" when you get the chance. If anyone here is spreading falsehoods, it would be you, with your inflated claims and your passing off of bad sources -- a wedding announcement? a manufacturer's promotional website? random credit pages which often don't even use his name? All this so you and Molesworth can make a buck off of the hard-won reputation of this online encyclopedia: THAT should be of note and concern for all Wiki editors. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm not sure you've taken the time to look at the most recent sources I've provided. If not, please do so.

The two links that Calton refers to immediately above are no longer up there on the current article. This article is an ongoing work in progress as am I as a Wiki editor. Having said that, the ones Calton objected to are no longer in the entry, as Calton removed them, and understandably so. I have, however, replaced them both with reliable sources. The NY Times wedding announcement is only in Molesworth's personal section and that is standard for Wikipedia entries.

One new citation I've included is a piece from WestportNow, an online news outlet in the state of Connecticut in the United States. The second is a profile from The New York Press Club and was written by an Emmy award winning anchor/journalist. The third source cites Molesworth's first place award one year for Feature Photography. It is a direct link to the Society of Professional Journalists and its awards page. As such those three are certainly reliable wikipedia sources. Please do read the entire entry carefully with all its current citations. There are many reliable sources cited including BBC, PBS, BFI, The NY Times, etcetera, all listing Molesworth's cinematography credits clearly despite Calton's ascertains to the contrary. Let the FACTS speak for themselves. I'd be very appreciative of your feedback as to edits you might suggest to strengthen the entry. I am not intending to inherit notability of the films he has worked on. What I've been trying to do with his entry is to show that this particular cinematographer has had a prolific career in the domestic and international broadcast film and television arenas for several decades now. He has an industry record decades long of having been a Director of Photography on many award winning films. His body of work is the empirical evidence and is easily sourced online by many reputable cites other than Wikipedia. He is also an award winning DoP and still photographer himself as previously discussed.

We previously used a vendor source who conducted an interview with Molesworth on their website. (https://www.mytworks.com/2017/01/13/interview-molesworth-myt-camera-slider/) The materials I've sourced from it are ones relevant to Molesworth's career. WP: RELIABILITY indicates circumstances when one can cite a vendor source, I was wondering if our case falls in the category. Your feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Missvangie (talk) 17:22, 24 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

England 2030 FIFA World Cup bid

England 2030 FIFA World Cup bid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know if there will be a bid by England to host the 2030 World Cup. Indeed, most of the recent reporting has suggested if there is a bid involving England, it would also involve other neighbouring countries.

A similar article was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is just guess work at the moment, with no real information. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep through the sourcing, passes WP:GNG. Per WP:CRYSTAL, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. That is the case here. SportingFlyer talk 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't even know if this will occur. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (my emphasis). The recent reporting indicates that any bid would be a UK, or UK and Ireland, bid. Therefore an "England" World Cup bid is far from certain to take place. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an "event," though, and it passes WP:GNG regardless. SportingFlyer talk 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. England hasn't even confirmed an intent to file a bid, only that they are considering the possibility. Please note that this is a different case than Uruguay–Argentina–Paraguay 2030 FIFA World Cup bid and Morocco 2030 FIFA World Cup bid, as those football associations have announced that they will file bids when FIFA opens the process. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bid is not an event, it's a proposal, so the part of CRYSTAL delete !voters are citing does not apply. Rather, the part cited by SportingFlyer is what we need to look at, as it discusses future proposals. And right now, it's a future proposal, which is allowed under CRTYSTAL if it passes GNG, which it does due to the ample sourcing. Smartyllama (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in two minds about this. Is this article useful to readers? Maybe. Is it still TOOSOON? Maybe. We really shouldn't be covering this until they have actually lodged an intent to make the bid, as right now it is just some backroom discussions that may or may not come to anything. This article is basically a bunch of quotes and opinions from various people and groups speculating on a possible British bid. Its a bit of a flimsy rationale for a standalone article at this stage. Maybe merging it to a short section over at 2030 FIFA World Cup would be the wisest choice? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is referenced 'chat'. Not quite twitter but not encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it is too soon. While a bid is possible and is being discussed more than when the similar article was deleted, until things firm up (eg whether it is not clear yet whether this will be a stand alone bid by the English FA, a joint England and other UK nations bid or indeed a UK and Republic of Ireland bid) it is best covered as part of the 2030 world cup article. Dunarc (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - until there is confirmation that a bid will be made, it is too soon to have an article. ICPH makes good points in his comment, and I would agree that including a short section at 2030 FIFA World Cup could be a good option until the associations confirm whether or not they will actually bid. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BALL Hhkohh (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as all the sources are speculative about whether England will actually bid. Fine to recreate if/when a proper, official England bid is announced. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 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. Tone 13:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic dysfunction

Somatic dysfunction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dictionary definition of a fictional concept. There are no WP:MEDRS for this because it doesn't exist. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is a synonym for the "osteopathic lesion" proposed by A.T. Still, as we already explain in our Osteopathic manipulation article. It is a bogus concept[31] and not discussed outside the fringe/in-universe world of osteopathic publication, or recognized in legitimate medicine. Any mention of this topic (for example from the linked Snyder piece) would be better incorporated into Osteopathic manipulation per WP:NOPAGE. Having a stand-alone article in its current state is a failure of NPOV as it legitimizises a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Neither the requirement for significant coverage, nor the requirement for secondary sources are met. The bulk of the article comprises unsourced or questionably sourced text, which if removed, would leave nothing of any encyclopedic value. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 20 September 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. Tone 20:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Joseph of Reims

Saint-Joseph of Reims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:GNG, promo, cut-and-paste translation with dodgy results. The Banner talk 11:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they're copy-paste translating whole sections from their handbooks and websites, then it should be tagged for copyvio and the article needs to have WP:TNT before considering deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, "cut-and-paste translation" as in "a quick translation without checking the sources". The Banner talk 22:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a transaltion of the French article, here. It is entirely comprehensible to me. If there are issues with the translation that is a matter for clean-up fixing and is not a ground for deletion. The French article has been around since September 2010 and there is no indication of copyright concerns over there. This is a historic school and, whilst the article would benefit from more independent sources, a search on the French titles, as well as the English, shows up sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk)
  • Keep I too find it extremely frustrating when I find cut and paste translations. Nevertheless, keep as above. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:48, 10 October 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 City Lore. North America1000 00:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Place Matters

Place Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 09:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to City Lore, the organization under which it currently operates a gallery. Gallery probably meets WP:N but this isn't notable enough for a spinoff. I'm not against merge but not advocating for it as there's content about it there already and probably doesn't need to be this detailed. StarM 02:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 16:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 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. Tone 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propertini

Propertini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in depth independant coverage as for WP:NCORP. Crunchbase is routine listing, coverage in relation to Benford's law merely quote the company or mention it - they do not have any depth. Unable to find any indepth coverage; only mentions, routine announcements, and press releases Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 20 September 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 Tiling window manager. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wmii

AfDs for this article:
Wmii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous discussion noted three reliable sources which are currently mentioned in the "Further reading" section. The Linux Format source is the only reliable and independent significant coverage of this window manager. The article in Linux Magazine, issue 64, was written by Nico Golde, who is affiliated with suckless.org, which is the former host of wmii. So Golde is not independent here. The other Linux Magazine article, from issue 54, covers WMI, the predecessor of wmii, so it can't be used to demonstrate notability of its successor wmii. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – passes WP:GNG per previous AfD. Linux Magazine has editorial control, so it is still a reliable source despite the author's alleged affiliation with the software. Bradv 23:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are usually considered unreliable (especially for notability) when the author is personally related to the subject and has a conflict of interest. wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (or very weak keep) to Comparison of X window managers Tiling window manager nom is correct it's non-independent. Crying wolf with all these bad noms, given up looking for sources. Widefox; talk 19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Comparison of X window managers per Widefox. Started looking at this a few days ago and haven't found independent sources. Closest I found is forum mentions and the like. I see that there is a mention in "Mac OS X For Unix Geeks, 4th Edition" ISBN 978-0-596-52062-5 but doesn't appear enough to be notable. My subscription at safaribooksonline is limited, so can't check out in full details, but the search result implies it's just talking about dot files related to wmii. PaleAqua (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also be fine with merging or redirecting to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X as suggested below. PaleAqua (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Few online resources assisting notability with Golde excluded. Antonis is OK and Saunders might be available in an archive somewhere. The WMI predessor is valid provided it is identified as a direct ancestor ... I've seen one statement on a GitHub or something to that but not a lot really. Seems like a weak link compared to other major tiling X window managers. Would possibly do nicely to merge to an article on 'tiling X window managers' if such an article existed ... I dont htink it does. It *might* just be viable to a minimal merge into a near relative, not sure it would merge well into 'Comparison of X window managers' but I'll support it if people feel they can do it. I'd support a draftify if someone thought they were going to work in it, otherwise if none of these delete. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (unless reason to keep) as one/two liner to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X (Found article does exist from by where my comment above said it didn't) Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better target as the comparison article wouldn't have an article so would fail inclusion. Widefox; talk 13:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X. Seems too much like a user manual, and there's not much meat. Hunting through 6 pages of Google results only brings up this weak item.[[32]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:01, 28 September 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 Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EKOSPOL

EKOSPOL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written originally as a heavily promotional piece by an editor who appears to have a close connection with the company. It has been somewhat scrubbed of the obviously promotional writing.

A review of the references (in Google Translate since they're all written in Czech) appears to show that they are all mostly published by the company (press releases and the such), affiliated with the company in some way (fifth reference especially), or trivial coverage (non-notable awards, sponsorship initiatives, and basic company information) as defined in WP:NCORP.

An online search did not turn up any clear, reliable secondary coverage. Therefore, my reasoning for deletion is twofold: the article's subject fails NCORP, and its publication was motivated by promotional soapboxing. EclipseDude (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:06, 20 September 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. Tone 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arokah

Arokah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NO independent reliable coverage. All of the sources are review blogs, unreliable Editor General of Wiki (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:29, 20 September 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 09:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

App Annie

App Annie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undisclosed COI work and the article's athuor's only-ever creation. Reads severly like an advertisment and in a bullet-point list. The second section is entirely unsourced and the first lacks citations in several places. Lordtobi (✉) 05:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 06:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely promotional. Fails WP:NCORP. If the spam was removed, there would be a very small article. May survive on it. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:34, 27 September 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. Tone 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Harpas

Andy Harpas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article with two unreliable sourced and little else. Fails the general notability guidelines very badly. I will be removing the unreliable sources when this AfD is online. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon for what? The guy wrestled in the 1970s. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Harpas (and other Australian wrestlers of his era) may have received mainstream media coverage in his native country but someone familiar with the history of wrestling in Australia would need to prove the point with reliable sourcing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources have not been found to make subject meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and subject does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER either. Sam Sailor 08:32, 27 September 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. Ultimately, the lack of convincing evidence to support the "keep" arguments tips the scales into "delete" territory here. Two of the 'keep' !votes don't actually make any attempt to demonstrate that the article does indeed satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, while another explores IAR reasons we may be able to justify keeping, which are reasonable but not particularly decisive. The only substantial "keep" argument makes a case that the coverage by RT and the Washington Diplomat satisfies the GNG. David makes a reasonable argument for considering RT as a legitimate source, at least in terms of establishing notability, and the Washington Diplomat actually appears to be a respectable and reliable newspaper. However, as RoySmith pointed out, the WD article is actually covering an event hosted by CEPA, not the organization itself, so unfortunately I don't see that as constituting "significant coverage" of the article's subject. RT does appear to offer 'significant coverage', but it's in the form of a critical opinion piece. I don't disagree with David's assessment that the RT piece, in spite being in a gray area in terms of being a reliable source, is a reasonable enough source to factor in when looking for coverage to establish notability. However, even if we give RT full credit as a reliable source here, I don't think one opinion piece, bulwarked by one article that covers what is essentially a related but different subject are enough to establish notability. The Gnome puts it well; this organization certainly does appear to be "significant", but it simply does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. There is, of course, certainly no prejudice against recreation if things change or if more sources are subsequently uncovered, and there is no prejudice against userfication, draftification, or merging into another article until that happens.  Swarm  talk  23:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for European Policy Analysis

Center for European Policy Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article from an SPA is sourced entirely to organization's own website or to non-RS like RT. A basic BEFORE finds a great number of references such as "according to a report issued by [org]" or "so-and-so was previously employed by [org]" but no coverage of the organization itself. Therefore, does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The organization's founder is the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, however, per WP:INHERITED this does not grant his group notability. Overall, fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, leaning IAR keep: Perhaps WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 should be considered as extending/applying to thinktanks ("...research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"), but it's not at all clear that that would be met by CEPA[33]. Another possibility would be if there were evidence of significant coverage of some of their activities including the CEPA Forum. A third possibility would be if there were sufficient offline coverage. On the one hand, it doesn't appear to meet ORGDEPTH / GNG. On the other hand, I know that HARMLESS and a (weak) USEFUL are WP:ATA, but... HARMLESS and USEFUL as this article links several bluelinked people; doesn't redirect anywhere cleanly; and can centralise material that would otherwise be reasonable to have at those members' articles, and that wouldn't nicely crosslink between those members. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Think tanks and the like rarely get any coverage for the organisation as such, only for the stuff they produce. Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NONPROFIT criteria are identical to the criteria for for-profit companies. There is no inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As previously noted, the WP:NONPROFIT criteria are identical to the criteria for for-profit companies. There is no inherent notability. That there are "several notable staff and alumni" is irrelevant as per WP:INHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are claims above that this meets WP:NONPROFIT, but that requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization, which I'm not seeing. Most of the sources in the article are to CEPA's own website. Of the four that aren't, two 404. The rt.com piece is an op-ed. The Diplomatic Pouch piece is about a forum run by CEPA, not the organization itself. It's also unclear if The Diplomatic Pouch is a WP:RS; they describe themselves as, an email newsletter distributed to opt-in subscribers and produced by The Washington Diplomat, an independent monthly newspaper. The Pouch covers the diplomatic community, international affairs, politics, arts and culture, and social life in Washington, D.C. Although a complement to The Washington Diplomat newspaper, all content is original and exclusively written for the Pouch. I have no idea what editorial oversight they have, and our The Washington Diplomat article doesn't say much either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a significant institution in terms of personnel, scope, and funding, yet it does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Online searching scares up mostly Wikipedia mirrors, references to publications by the institution (e.g. here or here), and self-references, but no significant coverage in independent sources. We could mercifully diagnose WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has sufficient notability with: Washington Diplomat interview,[34] and RT opinion. I understand that we consider RT to be biased, because it is pro-Russian rather than pro-American, and that we have concerns about fact-checking, accuracy and completeness based on critics who assert that it is insufficiently independent of the Kremlin and that it is "a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy." Of course, scholars like Noam Chomsky have made a similar critique of American media such as New York Times. [35](See also [36], Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias.) I am not suggesting that RT is as reliable as the NYT, or that the OpEd about CEPA is "reliable." However, the fact that CEPA is covered in RT, in my opinion, lends to its notability.
That said, with the few sources available, the article should be cut down to a short paragraph or possibly to two sentences. Another option is to merge with a person strongly associated with CEPA who has an article, but I would rather go with rather keep, because I am not sure it is fair to essentially credit all of CEPA's work with any individual. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 23 October 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DiRosa

Joe DiRosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not apparently notable apart from his company, which may not be notable either. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the pages for New York Artist Series and Joe DiRosa and the only history of me making and edits to those pre-existing pages was while I was trying to clean up the presentation.. The New York Artist Series page has been around since 2009 and none of the edits or page creation had anything to do with me. The Joe DiRosa page has been around since before that I believe but apparently from the records someone recreated it back in 2016.. I'm not sure what happened there .. The changes i made were cosmetic in nature and since this is my public image you have posted on here I don't see the problems since the pages were not done up to today's wiki standards.. Now perhaps I should have had a friend make the edits but FunPlusSmart seems to be trying to be vindictive which is definitely against wiki policy.
Oh 3rd thing is I went to go look at the draft for Onox, Inc. and saw a Create Page button instead of the submit article button.. I thought wiki upgraded my account to be able to edit so i made the page and removed the draft.. Once it was pointed out to me that the page shouldnt have been made I returned to the draft version so it could be authorized by whoever does that in the wiki community. For some reason I seem to be under attack.. For some reason this guy has this conspiracy theory which the history of these articles he is attacking proves isnt true. Joedirosa (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I read this comments on the other page and they are ludicrous.. You think i created an account that was called CertainlyHandsome .. Come on.. there have been edits on these pages over 10 years .. I have had people remove all sorts of references, change the contents and I haven't paid attention. Now I go in and just try and clean up the mess its become and you guys are having a heart attack. I didnt even add information I just cleaned up the structure. I'll get someone to post a whole new set of references, links, and information. Just the other day someone removed an article that was originally published on Yahoo as a reference since the company shut down that part of it's editorial. Just because an article was removed from the web after 10 years doesn't mean it wasnt published. Some how this became a witch hunt. Joedirosa (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Since I don't have access to IP information for registered accounts, I withdraw my accusation that these different accounts represent the same individual editor. I still think that the page is not notable enough, but as I said I'm glad to have it become a redirect, which would mean people would still be able to learn about you and your company if they looked you up by name on Wikipedia. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the subject's company as before, he fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage cited by the article covers the subject's company, and only makes passing mention of the subject himself. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not always inheritable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I had quite an ugly experience with Joedirosa on the COI noticeboard btw. funplussmart (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete There are certainly other references which can be added to justify notability but I have to find someone else to do them. I'm not getting involved with the page myself. Joedirosa (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Meat puppetry before doing that! Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: Wrong link! This is the correct one: WP:MEAT.
For the purposes of this discussion you don't need to add them to the article, just list them here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/celebs-toss-paunch-lines-flab-wars-article-1.559629 https://www.youtube.com/user/NewYorkArtistSeries/videos ( Shot over 100 Fashion Week Videos, Shot videos feat. Artist David Girabaldi w/ 300k+ views, Video of the Miracle on the Hudson Crash 100k+ Views) https://bbook.com/tag/joe-dirosa/ ( 2 Articles Blackbook Magazine) http://www.grubstreet.com/2008/10/limelight_still_for_rent.html https://wikibionetworth.org/Joe_DiRosa_net_worth http://berksluxury.com/?s=Joe+DiRosa (Publisher, Editor BerksLuxury.com) https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08/26/limelight-club-to-re-enter-the-limelight/ https://www.law360.com/articles/521135/artist-series-offers-350m-cash-for-fuse-tv https://www.bloomberg.com/.../artist-series-makes-35o-million-cash-offer-for-fuse-tv https://www.rbr.com/artist-series-makes-350m-offer-for-fuse-tv/ https://www.pressreader.com/uae/the-national-news-business/20140324/281702612667228 https://observer.com/2009/02/holy-headache-finding-limelights-next-act/ https://observer.com/2008/10/former-limelight-now-priced-up-to-60-m/ http://fashionweekvideos.com/joe_dirosa/2007/new_york/september/new_york_fashion_week_september_2007.htm https://ny.eater.com/2008/8/26/6787543/eaterwire-the-lafrieda-black-label-dohings-the-future-of-limelight

Plus If i go into archive.org I can get you 3,000+ pieces of content I posted. Interviews with: Fashion Interviews Helena Fredriksson House of Diehl

Music Interviews Bebe Buell Interview Emily Lazar Paul Holmes DJ Jackie Christie Sofi Bonde DJ Christopher Lawrence Interview DJ Tiesto Interview Markus Schulz

Film & TV Interviews Laurence Kaldor Jayce Bartok Larry Turman Jaclyn DeSantis Robert Ackerman Tom Fontana

Artist Interviews Ernest Rosenberg Jasun Martz Keith Green

Plus I can probably find the 2 articles which were written on Yahoo which were deleted when they shut down their Voices section which i copied to a wix page so I wouldnt lose them. Probably a bunch more stuff too i can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirosa (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Joedirosa (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NONE of these sources are in-depth coverage, most are passing mentions at best, Youtube can't be used, Wikia sites can't be used, inyterviews are no good and press releases are not suitable either. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no press releases cited in those links. Many of the articles are more than a mention, as a matter of fact most are centered on or quote me. There was one wiki goof page cited. I've gone through the articles you guys have created and many of them aren't as relevant as any of these. The Artist Series websites were published for over 12 years with close to 20 million total visitors. They have been deactivated due to the financial strain of publishing when it wasn't a core business. I still own them all and many you don't see. Constructive comments are appreciated. Joedirosa (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go through a long list like that in hopes that one of those turns out to be a usable source. If you'd like to prune that back to just the ones that meet the criteria in WP:GNG, I'll take a look at them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hit a couple of them, and they are really minor: Village voice: "Well, now Steve Lewis—who was deported Limelight owner Peter Gatien’s right-eye man—interviews someone named Joe Dirosa, who states that he has partnered with Ashkenazy to exclusively lease out the joint—but not as a club!". Observer: DiRosa not mentioned at all. Berksluxury: a real estate and luxury products site with an article on mortgages by DiRosa. Eater: a sentence, almost: "Steve Lewis reports that the space that held the club Limelight (and The Avalon) will finally be in use again, but not as a club. Joe Dirosa will now be renting it out:". All in all, a junkpile of non-RS sources and passing mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The NY Post NY Daily News, Village Voice, Black Book Magazine, Observer (You didnt read either article cause I am mentioned in both), The National News, Law360, Bloomberg, Grub Street and Eater are not reliable sources. This guy is on a witch hunt. His comments are unreliable for this topic. BerksLuxury.com is a Luxury Lifestyle online magazine which pushes no products for sale with over 10 articles written by me on luxury lifestyle items, restaurants, and real estate. How is this an unbiased opinion?Joedirosa (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, except for the fact that the registered owner of berksluxury.com is Joe DiRosa.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I also noticed that not one person decided to take any of these articles and add them to the page. So essentially none of you are being unbiased at all. Joedirosa (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that BerksLuxury.com a Luxury Lifestyle online magazine with over 10 articles written by you is an independent source??? Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Whois above. Joe DiRosa is the owner of Berksluxury.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Joe DiRosa, you can only !vote once. I have struck your second, third and fourth !votes above. Also, here is a tip for you. It very rarely works when the article subject badgers the volunteer editors of Wikipedia to keep an article. Clear arguments in moderation are fine, but multiple !votes, suggesting that you will use meatpuppetry to fix things, claiming you are really famous and the like are not. I'm not sure who added the section headers to the AFD, but I removed them for clarity. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search produced no evidence of notabilty and the sources listed above are clearly insufficient. The subject of the article really ought to step aside, and let uninvolved editors evaluate the situation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are few and lack intellectual independence. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a good example of why we discourage WP:autobiography – it's probably unpleasant for Mr. DiRosa to be told that he does not appear to meet our notability requirements, but I can find no evidence that he does. All the hits on GBooks seem to be for the New Orleans politician of the same name. In the normal way, I'd suggest redirecting this to his company, New York Artist Series, but it seems unlikely that that can be shown to be notable either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Joedirosa: it has been semi-referred to above, but let me link WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Independent. To demonstrate the notability of a subject, a source must be reliable and indepandant of the subject in question. For this reason, the article linked above (written by you about a company you founded) is not independent by any metric.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wasnt trying to demonstrate notability. There were a specific line of events which were mentioned and they deleted reference to the article. Then proceeded to delete the reference to the facts saying there was no reference. Joedirosa (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subtract the article subect's keep !vote and you have almost have snow delete:10 deletes and one redirect.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, except that three of the "delete" votes (mine, Theroadislong, and Justlettersandnumbers) were actually "delete or redirect". — Lawrence King (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Joedirosa and his socks have been indefed by a CheckUser. funplussmart (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to being a notable person. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion, but sadly is being misused as such by some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 24 September 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Boudreau

Joe Boudreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find good sources for this article with one source. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails GNG. The one source in the article has no link, but is cited as refuge.com. That is the website of a spa, and there is nothing on the site about art exhibitions. The ref is thus likely either not RS or entirely faked. SpinningSpark 03:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A Google search turned up zero sources. The only thing relating to the subject is a GoFundMe page to cover the cost of the subject's cremation and memorial service. Straightforward fail of WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The artist was mentioned and quoted on ABC 7 Eyewitness News, Gallery showcases work of recovering addicts, 4 February 2008, by Harry Porterfield. The artist is also mentioned and discussed on The Chicago Reader, Arts & Culture, Art Therapy, 6 March 2008, by Deanna Isaacs. And on his gallery website, Thomas Masters Gallery. So, to say "a Google search turned up zero sources" is not only imprecise, but simply erroneous. I found these reliable sources in a one minute search on Google, and will continue searching for a few more minutes. Coldcreation (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The artists is also mentioned on Chicago Artist Resource, Career Moves: Mieke Zuiderweg - Gallery Media Director, 26 October 2012 by Alicia Car. Coldcreation (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned too on Chicago Art Magazine, Joe Boudreau’s Crazy F----- Maps. 19 October 2009, by Erik Wennermark. Coldcreation (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Apartment Therapy, A Designer's Modern Mix in a Sophisticated Chicago Loft, 31 March 2017, Aimée Mazzenga. Coldcreation (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Modern Luxury, Interiors. And Windy City Media Group in 2009. And a brief mention in Chicago Architect, Best Interior Designers Chicago. And (not sure how reliable this one is) Ranker, Famous Neo-expressionism Artists. And Crain's Chicago Business, 1 May 2009.Coldcreation (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, the article appears to pass the WP:GNG test. Coldcreation (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coldcreation, GNG is not passed with a bunch of passing mentions which is what you seem to have there. Do you have anything with substantial coverage? SpinningSpark 08:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Art Magazine one is not a passing mention. I haven't decided on whether the sources are sufficient, but at least look at them properly first. Hzh (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no evidence that any of his work is in any major art collection. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my analysis of the sources presented:
    • ABC7 - passing mention
    • Chicago Reader - passing mention
    • Thomas Masters Gallery - directory listing
    • chicagoartistsresource - bare mention
    • chicagoartmagazine - in-depth coverage
    • apartmenttherapy - bare mention
    • modernluxury - passing mention
    • Windy City Media - bare mention
    • chicagoarchitect.org - passing mention
    • ranker - not reliable
    • chicagobusiness.com - passing mention

So it appears we one, and one only, good source, by which it fails WP:GNG. Does not otherwise appear to pass NARTIST. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:32, 28 September 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 16:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Eggleton

Bob Eggleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Your results may vary, but my search turned up only interviews and passing mentions of his legendary greatness. Obviously established in the sci-fi/horror art illustration scene, but article has three sources and I cannot find more. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist multiple times. Passes WP:ARTIST. Vexations (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we can get some citations for them, the Hugo Award and Chesley Award are pretty significant. Also, he's got an asteroid named after him; how cool is that? ;) BOZ (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist article notes his 8 wins, and has all the citations we could need. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn OK, I'll stay away from Sci-fi articles in future. I had looked at the Hugo Award, but when I saw the Wordpress site and the web design, I gauged it for less notability than my esteemed colleagues above do. Article still only has three sources. Anyway, my mistake, apologies and withdrawn. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:48, 20 September 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. Tone 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Jenson

Ivan Jenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current official website is at https://www.ivanjenson.com/ Jenson is an author as well, but I can't find sources to reference that would make this meet BASIC/GNG, and NARTIST is not met either. Sam Sailor 08:12, 27 September 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 14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100 Contemporary Artists A-Z

100 Contemporary Artists A-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails book notability, as it lacks two in-depth sources. I removed a source for the independent that was trivial, but more importantly for a different book. I also removed 'sources' by Amazon, Goodreads and Book Depository, who are not RS. Search turned up nothing more than promotional blurbs and book seller sites. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. There is other coverage: [38]. Multiple book reviews: International Journal of Baudrillard Studies (from Bishop's University) [39] and ABC News [40]. This book is widely held by 317 libraries: [41]. This is a trilingual book (written in English, German and French) from Germany. Its German and French names are "100 zeitgenössische künstler" and "100 artistes contemporains". A search for German and French language sources is in order. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because this could be merged and redirected to Taschen or to the Art Now or Art at the Turn of the Millenium series, from which the artists were taken, or to Hans Werner Holzwarth. James500 (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The sources you give above are very poor. A Worldcat entry showing lots of libraries have it is of no use for notability, the ABC news list of coffee table books to buy is minor coverage, and the Baudrillard Journal, while it is good coverage. is in such a tiny fringe publication that i wonder if it matters at all. The lack of good sources that you've demonstrated is why I nominated it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources are excellent. An academic journal published by a university is one of the best possible sources and one of the strongest possible forms of evidence of notability. It is a gold standard source. GNG is only interested in the quality of sources and does not have an "anti-monograph" clause. Being widely held by libraries indicates that the book is popular and therefore notable. James500 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have one decent source, a Baudrillard journal from a small university. Show others. I can see you are deeplycommited tokeeping this coffee table book, this, so I won't reply further.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as there's no claim to notability. I't unremarkable that someone should review a coffee table art book, and, well, this is a coffee table art book, one of many published in a year. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Neither GNG nor NBOOK requires that coverage be of a form that is rare. That is simply not a valid argument. The presence of book reviews is one of the main and best tests for the notability of books. In any event, I am under the impression that the overwhelming vast majority of books have never been reviewed at all, so getting a book review actually is remarkable, even if that did matter, which it doesn't. (2) Likewise, the relevant notability guidelines do not require that a topic be rare either. So that is not a valid argument either. In any event, there is no evidence that "many" other coffee table art books have achieved the level of coverage or circulation that this one has, so there is no evidence that there are "many" others, even if that did matter, which it doesn't. James500 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but it does not change the fact that the subject lacks sources to establish notability. The examples you have given so far is very weak sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability entirely obvious. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep because many of the artists mentioned in the book may themselves be notable. Reference books like this that contain information about notable artists and from major publishers should get an immediate pass. It would be helpful if the article listed the artists. I did a quick search and here are just a few of the notable artists: Jean-Michel Basquiat, Marlene Dumas, Damien Hirst, Mike Kelley (artist), Jeff Koons. That was the first five I looked and all had WP entries. Auldhouse (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP—WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS is what matters here. It is not the notability of the artists contained in the book that confers notability on the book. It is simply the fact that artists are contained in the book—notable or not—and it is from a major publisher and the book is stocked by many libraries and the book is published in multiple languages and Wikipedia is interested in covering art. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP—I am not basing notability on any notability of artists as might be contained in the book therefore it is completely baffling to me that you say "That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED". My argument above was that the non-notable artists as might be found in the book contribute as much to the notability of the book as the notable artists. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe—do we have policies on "coffee table art book[s]"? Wouldn't "art" and "artists" be subject areas Wikipedia tries to cover? The book is published by a major publisher, is held by many libraries, and published in English, German, and French. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two sentences in a list of coffee table books is not significant coverage. (For the art lovers in us all, there's "100 Contemporary Artists," a comprehensive study of contemporary art at the beginning of the 21st century. At 704 pages, it's nearly 12 pounds of art for your viewing pleasure.) Online stores like artbook.com are not reliable sources,m so that leaves only blackcube. That's not enough to meet the GNG. Per WP:NBOOK:
  1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. ✗ Fail
  2. The book has won a major literary award.✗ Fail
  3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. ✗ Fail
  4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. ✗ Fail
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. ✗ Fail

Vexations (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author or editor, Hans Werner Holzwarth, has written books on Jean-Michel Basquiat, Ai Weiwei, Darren Almond and Christopher Wool. Also they have written "Modern Art 1870-2000: Impressionism to Today" and a 4 volume set called "Art Now!" Perhaps the inapplicable number 5 is applicable. Given that we have articles on Abandoned footwear and Mike the Headless Chicken perhaps we can have articles on books about contemporary art or articles on galleries of contemporary art. But that is not a valid argument because wp:other stuff exists would invalidate that argument. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a stretch. Holzwarth is not so historically significant that you can invoke NBOOK#5. We don't even have an article about him. I can think of a few art critics: Anything written by Baudelaire is pretty much notable, or anything written by Diderot, or perhaps Guillaume Apollinaire. But not this author. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Baudelaire, Denis Diderot, and Guillaume Apollinaire didn't write about the art produced from the mid-twentieth century onward, which might be called contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, Bus stop. They're the art critics I could think of that are so notable that anything they write is also notable. I couldn't think of any critic of contemporary art from whom that would be true. I don't think that there are any. You've done nothing to establish that Holzwarth is even notable, let alone "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable". I gave you examples of people who do meet that criterion to give you an idea of what kind of people are covered by NBOOK#5. That they wrote about -their- contemporaries, not ours, is irrelevant. I meant to show you that there are such people, but that Holzwarth isn't one of them. Surely we can agree that the three I mentioned are much more "historically significant" than Holzwarth. Your proposal to apply criterion #5 is against established consensus. Meta: This part of the discussion should really be hatted.
There is no reason that I can think of that the patina of age should be a notability criteria. Flawed people lived 100 years ago and sharp people live today. Additionally the art of 100 years ago is different from the art of today. The fact that Hans Werner Holzwarth has written many books about contemporary art suggests that they may be "historically significant", but obviously of a more shallow "history" than Charles Baudelaire, Denis Diderot, and Guillaume Apollinaire. I don't think this part of the discussion should be hatted. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really wanted to save this article, and just bought the book from Amazon because it was highly reviewed and looks like a great gift for my art loving mother-in-law, but I just can't find any media coverage, besides the blurb from ABC that's in the article already. Fails WP:GNG. This reminds me of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but with a few major differences. That article has a Publisher's Weekly review, and the book is filled with reviews by notable critics. Also, over 700 album articles link to the 1001 Albums book - yet not one of the articles of artists featured in this book link to this article. I'll be getting the book tomorrow and will see if there are any reviews on the slipcovers, or anything else that might move the needle, but for now sadly this is a delete. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • update - I got the book - it's a hefty two volume set that's shrinkwrapped in a cardboard sleeve, but since it's a gift I can't take it out to review - so no change. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not seeing significant independent coverage in secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first week was mostly "keep"; the second mostly "delete". I'm not comfortable closing as anything at the mo, so can we have more views?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails the GNG, which demands detailed coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The first week not-voters did not provide such sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think James500's remark way up top is essentially correct. A scholarly reference and decent library holdings add up to a case for preserving the content. Merging to the publisher would be a viable way to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • XOR'easter, for my own edification, could you point to where Library holdings are stated as a notability criteria? Lots of libraries have hold copies of a particular cookbook or novel, but that does not necessarily mean a particular book is notable. For example, Worldcat says "Hand tool basics : woodworking tools & how to use them" is held by 144 libraries. If someone mentions it in a scholarly journal for a few sentences, does it become notable? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at library holdings might be legitimate to get a clue to importance/popularity but it does nothing to substantiate notability. The idea that deleting this somehow harms our coverage of art is nonsense. This is a book about art, it is not art itself. Our coverage of the substantive topic remains intact. There are many such books, not all of them are going to be notable. It would be better used as a reference to the artists' articles rather than as a basis for an article on itself. SpinningSpark 11:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Coulter, Gerry (January 2010). "Review Essay: The Conspiracy of Art (Illustrated)". International Journal of Baudrillard Studies. Bishop's University. Archived from the original on 2018-10-21. Retrieved 2018-10-21.

      The review notes:

      Hans Werner Holzwarth’s book: 100 Contemporary Artists, presents us with a vivid illustration (without the author intending one) of Baudrillard’s notion of a conspiracy in contemporary art. It is worth revisiting Baudrillard’s essay before examining this book more closely. Along with Holzwarth I also examine Anne Ellegood et. al., Vitamin 3-D: New Perspectives in Contemporary Sculpture ...

      ...

      In terms of representing artists who produce banality I think it fair to say that the book does a marvelous job (without of course, intending to) and this is ironically, its great strength. Among the more banal works included are Franz Ackermann’s post Warholian understanding of painting meets tourism (the real can be very punishing even to a painter of talent). Cai Guo-Qiang’s spectacle’s, George Condo’s caricatures, John Curran’s figures, [long list of artists and their works], each are left to stand in for art which has lost the desire for illusion. Everywhere the real punishes and obliterates an art that desires only it.

      ...

      ... Perhaps if Holzwarth et. al. were given more time and freedom by their editors, a more in-depth analysis of these artists (and others) who resist the conspiracy of art, might have produced the book readers deserve rather than a catalogue of trends. Critical judgment is out of vogue but it is still possible – the problem is, in the era of the mega-art book aimed at the most democratic cross section of consumers possible (what we also know to be the lowest common denominator), most of the books we meet concerning contemporary art in the new mega-bookstore are interested in fashion rather than analysis. ...

      ...

      Instead of any significant analysis or development of a critical position we are given a one paragraph long vague introduction to each artist, which often in a full blaze of conspiracy, self-reference the art world which has established these artists as its key trend makers. That said, given the state of affairs and the competition which Taschen faces, and for all of its problems, this book is a sincere effort to identify the leading trends. What is not engaged is the problem of seeking trends over depth.

    2. Faujour, Mikaël (2011-07-22). "100 Contemporary Artists, de Taschen : un panorama de la création contemporaine" [100 Contemporary Artists, from Taschen: a Panorama of Contemporary Creation]. Tout La Culture (in French). Archived from the original on 2018-10-21. Retrieved 2018-10-21.

      http://toutelaculture.com/auteurs/WebCite lists Yael Hirsch, a journalist, doctor of political science, and lecturer at Sciences Po as a co-editor. It also lists Amelie Blaustein Niddam, a journalist and doctor of history as a deputy editor. This demonstrates that Tout La Culture has editorial oversight.

      From Google Translate:

      In a box of 2 volumes and some 700 pages, 100 Contemporary Artists from Taschen publishes a selective panorama of the artists considered as major on the international scene of the last 20 years. The inevitable (Jeff Koons, Matthew Barney, Cindy Sherman, Takashi Murakami, Nan Goldin or Thomas Hirschhorn ...), neighboring with less known artists, some very exciting. The worst is next to the best, reflecting the immense diversity of approaches, themes and materials / mediums.

      ...

      Behind the flashy kitschy and industrialized kitsch of Jeff Koons or Takashi Murakami, other artists demonstrate such prodigious inanity that one remains amazed by the capacity for endorsement and justification. The texts are sometimes superbly laughable, for example when one of the authors speaks of "inverting the relationship sculpture / pedestal" for Franz West, or when another evokes a mysterious "thorny question of the relationship between sculpture and his pedestal " for Erwin Wurm ... Or again, this delicious passage:

      ...

      In short, the best and the worst are mixed together in this confused boiling of forms and words, which is difficult not to describe as that of our uncertain time, and which is also translated into politics. From this uncertainty and the preoccupations of the time, the plurality of the approaches outlined in 100 Contemporary Artists is fully recognizable. Sometimes real successes, real artistic achievements, sometimes the feeling that expanding the possibilities of art, by expanding it, leads to "works" that are in fact only the worst of lazy people renouncing the implementation of their ideas in an accomplished form, whether it was romantic, pictorial, photographic or even journalistic.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Contemporary Artists A-Z to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:

    A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria because it has received two significant reviews.

    Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment even if GNG is met by the very low standard of two reviews as the multiple "sources", the last comment leaves out the part of GNG that says "notability is presumed to be met" rather than automaticlally met, and that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." We have no need of an article on a book that we can only find two equivocal reviews for. That a tiny journal and a minor French blog mentioned this book is not that a strong argument for keeping it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:20, 21 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted (Thai TV series)

The Gifted (Thai TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, mostly unsourced. -- AlexTW 02:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We really need Thai speaker/readers to help assess this one – it's really hard to appraise the quality of the sources already used in the article without having somebody who reads Thai... In the absence of that, I'm leaning in the direction of "keep", as this one seems to meet WP:TVSHOW pretty easily, and has three sources which would seem to indicate that it's gotten independent coverage as per WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am torn here. Does it really deserve an English Wikipedia article if all that can be found are foreign sources, does it make it notable in that regard? It does seem to meet WP:GNG if I ignore what I just said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:GNG explicitly states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." See the final sentence under the third main bullet. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Jovanmilic97 The reason such topics deserve English wikipedia articles is the little-known (in the west) fact that English is the lingua franca in Asia. The Far East is incredibly diverse in terms of languages and writing systems, but it has a strong history of cross-cultural TV exchanges which has increased in recent years due to fansubbing. For this particular show, many Chinese fans are also watching it online (see here) despite not knowing a word of Thai. A Chinese person may not speak much English but he/she will be able to read far more English than Thai, and there are far more Thai-speaking fans who are able to write about the show and its cultural context in English than in Chinese. Therefore the translation process is commonly Thai -> English -> Chinese (or another language). (Another reason is that Google Translate fails with almost all Asian languages, if you don't believe me try the th.wiki article in Google Translate. However, it does a pretty good job translating from English to an Asian language. I believe it's because European languages are much more precise and unambiguous.) Timmyshin (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News coverage is good. Here is Google News search results [42]. Note that both sanook.com and SpringNews are recognized as news source by the Google News search earlier, hence should be considered as reliable (Sanook is Thailand's top portal, SpringNews is one of a few news TV channels, Sudsapda is a weekly entertainment magazine by one of Thai top publisher). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTV, nationally broadcast TV shows are likely to be notable, and sources provided are enough to show that it is in fact notable. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [E/C] Comment: Lots of coverage in Thai, including in Kom Chad Luek,[43] Sanook[44] & Spring News.[45] While TV series routinely generate a lot of media coverage, not all of which is original and in-depth, there's some here that's more than rehashings of press releases. This Sudsapda article goes a bit into its production background.[46] Sanook reports it generating the highest ratings so far this year among teen series.[47] --Paul_012 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Lerdsuwa and Paul 012 – I suspected that this TV series was notable, and they have convinced me with the evidence provided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Paul 012. English sources are preferred is they are of equal or better quality than sources in other languages – that is our only preference. Of course we have to use sources in other languages to write about phenomena in countries that speak other languages, just like basically any other encyclopedia with the ambition to cover the world has done. /Julle (talk) 00:40, 27 September 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. Tone 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annaliese Nock

Annaliese Nock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and never made it past auditions on the show. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 4 October 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. After three relists, opinions on what to do are still too diverse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melanoglossia

Melanoglossia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of 2 sentences Openlydialectic (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having two sentences is not a reason to delete an article. ~ GB fan 12:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again while it is a factual statement, not having sources in an article is not a reason to delete it unless it is a BLP. ~ GB fan 20:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Black hairy tongue. It's not exactly a widely discussed symptom, and unlikely to support more than a stub in any case. Short defining refs can be found, e.g. [48]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 01:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be widely discussed, but it's wide enough that readers might want to look it up. Our criterion for inclusion is notability, not widely known. SpinningSpark 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, google says it is a real condition. Szzuk (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Google says" is not enough. There must be WP:MEDRS-quality sources cited in the article. And there are none. WP:V mandates deletion. Can be recreated if sourced. Sandstein 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Spinningspark and C.1. of WP:BEFORE. The is a medical condition discussed in reliable sources. If this is deleted very little information is lost, but we *should* have a better article on this (along with 10.57 million other topics.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Tongue disease, if content on this gets expanded there, it can be split out eventually. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 5 October 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. Tone 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aadara Hasuna

Aadara Hasuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this person meets GNG, can't find any sources outside of imdb and hasn't been sourced since 2009! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I put the wrong reasoning in this AFD, but fails WP:NFILM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at worst redirect to H. D. Premaratne. First, it's not even a person, it's a film. Looking for "Adara Hasuna" or "ආදර හසුන" gives further sources, but I'm not able to adequately search for Sri Lankan movie titles to definitely say that this is a notable film. It certainly gets enough mentions, and has been shown in film festivals around the world, but 1986 is too old to easily find many traces of this. Fram (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "NFILM"; it has "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.", which this film clearly does. A full length film is a major part of the career of any notable film maker (well, excluding some extremely rapid film makers like porn directors and the like). The Sri Lanka Daily Mirror considers the movie notable enough to give it some attention in April 2017 here. Fram (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 13 September 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, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major director, major lead actor. Sources are almost certain to exist offline (if not online in sources that are in Sinhalese and therefore unintelligible to me). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to WP:V? Sources could exist for any number of subjects but if no one can provide them, how can we possibly judge them? Saying that "they must exist offline" is absolutely ridiculous. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I do agree with User:Chrissymad that it is wrong to simply assume notability without any sources. But With these two English sources [52][53] that call him this directors notable works and this movie as a visual poetry, I am inclined to keep. The local language is Sinhalese and Tamil, yet we have English sources that provide positive (minor) coverage, so User:Fram's assumption that Sinhalese media will have SIGCOV is not unfounded. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect to the director, I'm undecided which, either way it isn't delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:42, 27 September 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. Michig (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Dalit Development Organization

Bihar Dalit Development Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, promo, largely based on the own website and related sources The Banner talk 12:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even without going into Hindi and Bhojpuri coverage ,it is a notable organisation in Bihar in a area of caste conflict.It is also known as Bihar Dalit vikas samiti.Several Google Books hits even without considering Hindi and Bhojpuri sources.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9][10]

References

  1. ^ Dalits in Action: An Evaluation of Bihar Dalit Vikas Samiti
  2. ^ Mapping Bihar: From Medieval to Modern Times
  3. ^ Social Exclusion: Essays in Honour of Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak Volume 1 Pg 87-88
  4. ^ Dalits and Human Rights: Dalits: the broken future pg 140
  5. ^ Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar pg 147
  6. ^ Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's "untouchables".By Smita Narula, Human Rights Watch Pg 147
  7. ^ Beyond the priestly call Bihar Times
  8. ^ The Journal of Social Transformation, Volume 10 Pg 21-22
  9. ^ Journal of Social and Economic Development, Volume Institute for Social and Economic Change, 2007 - Economic development pg 69-70
  10. ^ IASSI Quarterly, Volume 23 pg 91

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I have been searching on the Hindi name. But passing mentions convey no notability. The Banner talk 07:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on above sources. At least one source (#1) is self-published by the organization. About half of the sources above are very minor mentions of. sentence or less. I tend to agree that the org looks notable, but would note that the list above makes it look a lot more notable than sources actually make it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, the book is typical Dalit-promo-BS but can you clarify upon your claim of self-published.Thanks! ∯WBGconverse 07:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, got the clue:-) ∯WBGconverse 07:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Borderline stuff (weakly skewed towards keep) but will be commenting in some detail.∯WBGconverse 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Book (#1) was written by Prof A .K Lal of Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute in 1997 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:20, 13 September 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, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The organization looks notable enough. MaeseLeon (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has decent coverage in books. Much greater coverage is expected in Hindi and Bhojpuri sources as they are the local language of the region. per WP:BIAS--DBigXrayᗙ 11:09, 22 September 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. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Tone 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropy

Tropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite entirely lacking in independent coverage; all sources are in-house or directly connected with the project. Considering the thing was released just a year ago, it's not that surprising. I suggest this falls at the WP:TOOSOON hurdle until and unless there is some wider uptake and/or coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the links provided by David Tornheim show that this tool meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge, I'm not persuaded by the refs noted here however it isn't a delete. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little bit more opinions on the sources provided by David Tornheim would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 7 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pcb-rnd

Pcb-rnd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing for an non-notable software package. Was nominated for PROD, an editor removed the tag after adding "independent sources". However, these sources consisted of a citation to another wiki page, links to software package listings on servers, and coverage at "Hackaday"., a tech blog. signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defending: this is the only active descendant of the original (quite notable) software package (gEDA pcb). pcb-rnd is in very active development across the last five years. For example, its data model is a superset of all known free/libre competitors, as it provides means to import their formats (netlists, board design data), which is a very strong and unique feature. More to say, pcb-rnd developers are in process of forming a full-featured FLOSS EDA ecosystem, building bridges and data-flows to other EDA packages. Regarding "independent sources" argument: the article about another electronics-related project of similar scale have no independent references at all, but was never nominated for deletion. We are all devoting our spare time to support FLOSS movement (by writing code, docs, articles). So lets improve and promote them, rather than hiding and deleting related articles from community. 185.254.139.42 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, notability per WP:N [57] for inclusion as this software is a subject of instruction in universities. Miloh (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a citation supporting this claim that it's a subject of instruction? The article itself doesn't make that claim, and while I see that apparently it was at least partly developed as part of a thesis project, "subject of instruction" generally means that there are entire courses devoted to it (or that at least use it heavily). I don't think being the subject of a master's thesis quite satisfies that criterion on its own, and a Google Scholar search for the package-name doesn't return much. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the citation in question is for a 79 page thesis paper published by the university, not an article. I've read it, it's in my field of expertise. Check the conclusion, figure 2-7, and page 22. For credit or lab classwork towards EE and CE degrees, EDA capture and layout tools including pcb-rnd are taught (although the software was not developed as part of thesis project though, this is incorrect). While the page will need more citations, this criteria should meet WP:N for software. Also, per 'Nominating for Deletion' [58] there's a note to "be sure to verify the page is non-notable, not just missing citations", even so, the page went to AfD without sending a message to the page creator asking for clarification. Let's remove AfD and add a refimprove template for the page. Miloh (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting that wikipedia and pcb-rnd have similar goals, namely, data preservation. pcb-rnd is the only FLOSS EDA software package actively implementing support for legacy file formats such as eagle binary, protel autotrax and so forth, which will help to preserve the digital legacy stored on old media but no longer accessible to those engaged in digital archaeology, preservation of hardware and preservation of older technology generally. Eliminating references to pcb-rnd on wikipedia diminishes the efforts of community driven efforts to preserve knowledge. I donate to wikipedia because I believe in keeping information accessible to all comers. I donate time to pcb-rnd for the same reasons (16 September 2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.20.127 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 14:51, 4 October 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. Tone 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priven Reddy

Priven Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional WP:BIO article full of WP:PUFF. Of 7 refs, 2 are specific. 3 are companies he started including websites.1 a promotional picture, in a auto mag. Non notable.Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC) scope_creep (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is covered in reputable south african sources, and is a billionaire in his country. Dijnonlips (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dijnonlips (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [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. With due regards to Oakshade's keep !vote, the discussion has tended towards delete (I say "tended", taking into account power-enwiki's comments on the Rename option). While I am deleting this article, my personal bent is that if sources discussing the subject significantly can be found, I would be keen to undelete this article. Lourdes 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Osborn Show

AfDs for this article:
Stu Osborn Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor viral ad with not enough lasting impact to require its own article. I wasn't able to find any sources other than those linked in the article, and I checked Google, GNews, GBooks, and GScholar. I also checked Highbeam and Newspapers.com (on a lark; I know it's mostly archival) and found nothing. Of the sources in the article, the first one is paywalled so I can't access it. The second is a name-drop only, and does not discuss the ad. The third confirms it won a Webby, but there's no inherent notability to winning a Webby. Arguably, awards grant notability because reliable sources discuss works which earn notable awards. But if there's no independent coverage of something as an award-winner, it's hard to argue that the award lends much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean to Keep - My position hasn't changed since the last AfD. As major talent put on this project (Christopher Guest, Fred Willard, Michael Hitchcock) it's hard to imagine this not being considered notable, which is why I created it. The Webby Award is a strong indication of notability. The Shoot reference is substantial despite now being behind a paywall. It's still surprising I've not found much more than the Shoot reference either. But like with the last AfD, common sense makes sense. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. If there was media coverage because those people participated in it, then that would be indicative of notability. But their participation alone does not make this notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 3 refs:1st paywalled, 2nd in passing, 3rd now a deadlink. No independent sources. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, per WP:N and WP:NEXIST, sources don't have to be available in the current state of the article. "No independent sources" is simply not accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any available at all, as far as I could tell. As noted in my nomination, I did a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE check and found nothing aside from the one paywalled source already linked in the article. From WP:NEXIST: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are specified sources., not unspecified. And I just fixed the 3rd one anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've fixed it, it's clear that the content didn't actually win the award in that category in 2008. "COCA COLA HAPPINESS FACTORY II - THE VIRTUAL PREMIERE" was the 2008 Branded Content winner. The Stu Osborn show is listed in the "view all Webby honorees" link at the bottom of that category with a number of other pieces of content. Being an "honoree" rather than a winner contributes nothing to notability, and so again we are left with the single source already linked in the article, and a single source is just not enough to consider something notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that too. Still a Webby Award honoree is an indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to what sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the references (and the Webby Award, which I can't verify at [59]) don't suggest this is a notable ad campaign, or that it was a popular "viral video". However, Microsoft's marketing campaigns in general is almost certainly a notable topic. If such an article existed, this could be merged there. I note that the Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ad campaign has plenty of coverage and is mentioned briefly on Gates' article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually looked for such an article when I first came upon this one, with the hope of merging this one there, but there isn't one. I wouldn't object to a merge & redirect if that article gets made, but I'll be honest in saying I don't have any interest in making it myself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that having such an article is a good idea (Apple Inc. advertising is mediocre; Reebok advertising campaigns is terrible). If people want the article I can create/expand it; closing this as Rename is probably the easiest option if that's the consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – while the Webby award is a suitable claim of notability per WP:NWEB, I can't find any independent sources to verify this claim. And for some reason I can't even find mention of this show on the Webby website, so the information fails WP:V. Bradv 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear (mainly for others who look at this discussion), per the commentary under Smallbones's comment above, the content did not even win the Webby. It was listed as a "Webby honoree" for the category - basically an honorable mention, with about a dozen other pieces of content. So its claim to notability is even weaker than it first appears. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 9 October 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. Tone 20:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Benefiting THON

Atlas Benefiting THON (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have just deleted & redirected The Four Diamonds Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund. This is the article on its related fund-raising organization. The extraordinary detail makes it clear that the intent is promotional. The references are local, and the event is non notable

See also the adjacent AfD for the article on the non notable related organization. The contents are very similar. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This could be a section in the THON article, but that could be a section in the Four Diamonds Fund, and that could be a section in the Hershey Hospital article. Is that 3 degrees removed from notability? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:08, 4 October 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 Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center#Four Diamonds. Clear consensus to delete and redirect -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon

Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have just deleted & redirected the Four Diamonds Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund. This is the article on its annual fund-raising event. The extraordinary detail makes it clear that the intent is promotional. The references are local, and the event is non notable..

See also the adjacent AfD for the AfD on an even less notable related organization. The contents are very similar. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 10:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the appropriate part of the material is already included in the main article. A redirect would make sense. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect charity fundraisers are pretty much routine on any large college campus. Like 1 per weekend per campus. Media coverage is basically routine and not independent. This one is big - if there is any independent source for saying it's the biggest, I missed it. All the refs look mildly promotional and non-independent. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional; as DGG writes this kind of detail can't be anything else; no objection to a non-spam recreation. Sandstein 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and lacking any good sources to establish WP:N. All the sources in the article are first-party or local to the school. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 11 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proud Refuge

Proud Refuge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (compare creator's username to subject's birth name) of a musician who has no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The notability claims here are a "hit" single whose status on any IFPI-certified pop chart is completely unspecified and unreferenced for the purposes of passing NMUSIC #2, and winning a minor local music award that does not pass NMUSIC #8 -- and the referencing is cutting no ice either, as it's referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources and the results page of a Google search rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in even one GNG-eligible media outlet. As always, musicians are not entitled to use Wikipedia as a promotional venue -- but this shows no evidence of passing any of the required notability standards. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 20 September 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oevo

Oevo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Asserts the 6 months old WP:NCORP policy. scope_creep (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is so clearly promotional. No way does it warrent any Wikipedia article. 70.27.95.244 (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole app isn't notable. And it does actually seem to be written in a non-neutral tone. Let me know otherwise and I could change my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A99F:FB3F:F994:8E6E:C475:1748 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete now Delete as there are non-primary sources available, but many are mere mentions and others are very biased in ways. Certainly not enough coverage to pass notability. Handoto (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to delete as looking through the page edit history, the app founder has been making his own edits to this article. Along with the fact that there is very limited and not enough coverage to deem this notable, the whole article's neutrality is now at risk here. Handoto (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as reasoning above. Promotional like crazy. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.232.234 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete has some sources, but I believe not enough. They said above that the article is promotional, which I agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.183.114 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 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. Tone 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AO-31

AO-31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm. Searches turned up no reliable sources and little in-depth coverage even in unreliable sources. Created by a sock of User:Ctway. ansh666 00:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 00:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 00:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly redirect to AG-043. Lack of SIGCOV - I'm having trouble finding sources for this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...No RS to speak of, may or may not exist. At best, just another dead end Russian prototype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, no RS found when searching for "AO-31" Автомат Опытный, hard to tell if this is a misunderstanding or prototype, but notable it is not. Sam Sailor 06:51, 27 September 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. Tone 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AB-3

AB-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm, no reliable sources could be found, and what unreliable sources exist seem to be mostly WP mirrors. Links in the article (which are dead) point to alternathistory.org.ua, which could indicate that it's made up. ansh666 00:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 00:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 00:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failing WP:V at the moment (alternathistory - deadlink but seems like a RS fail) - let along WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...Alternathistory refs are NOT RS --RAF910 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard to tell if this rifle actually existed. Sam Sailor 06:41, 27 September 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 Henry Selick. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow King

AfDs for this article:
The Shadow King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an unfinished and unreleased film. Per WP:NFF canceled/unreleased films should not have their own article. A search comes up with press releases from 2013 and talk about maybe restarting it in 2016, but nothing current. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like the last AfD ended with the consensus it should be merged, but I don't see where that ever happened. Barring any major progress on the film since 2015, I would say that this should be merged and redirected to the director's article. So far it looks like the only true news was that it's still being shopped around so a lot of this could be summarized into a few lines of text or a paragraph in the director's article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would of course recommend against stating definitively that any of the voice talent is signed for the film, as a lot has happened between 2013 and today. Some of the voice talent may have changed their mind or whatever studio picks this up (if it gets picked up again) may not want some of the actors in the cast. For example, some companies may see Jeffrey Tambor as box office poison. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. NFF, try the merge again. Szzuk (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 20 September 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) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Lennox

Lola Lennox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are quotes, brief mentions, interviews, Instragram posts, or lack mention of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly and respectfully do not believe this problem exists, as the individual in the article is not lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. The article clearly references multiple independent secondary sources covering the subject as the main topic of discussion-- and these are not just small or local sources. For example, there is a reference from Billboard, perhaps the most major international music news source, in which the subject of this article is the main topic of discussion. She made her first appearance singing with her mother, Annie Lennox (Grammy and Oscar winning musician) in a PBS live performance, and the article headline is "Annie Lennox On Her 'Beautiful' Stage Debut With Daughter In 'Nostalgia' Concert Special". This is not passing mention-- the fact that she was performing was the main topic of the news article. I would also carefully examine the references from The Telegraph 'Just sweet dreams for Annie Lennox's daughter, Lola', the in-depth profile referenced from Teen Vogue, where Lola Lennox is profiled clearly as the main topic of discussion along with her sister Tali Lennox. There is also the reference from Vogue Magazine where Lola Lennox is profiled as the main subject as well. It's all already in the article quite clearly if you look. There are also the stories published by Cosmopolitan, The Express... Lola Lennox is clearly the main topic of discussion, in-depth, from multiple, credible secondary sources that are indeed already referenced. I believe this is already enough to assert notoriety, as the subject has clearly received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It should also be noted that the subject is very famous in the United Kingdom, despite less notoriety internationally, I do not believe this should affect inclusion into Wikipedia. Also of note for anyone about to Google the subject-- she has been recorded as both Lola Lennox and Lola Fruchtmann in the press-- especially in the UK tabloids-- but she is in fact the same person (full name Lola Lennox Fruchtmann, Stage name Lola Lennox). This may make your search for more queries a bit more tricky on first glance. I agree the article does also reference secondary sources where the subject is mentioned but not the main subject-- but these merely fill out more info for the page and do not negate the clearly referenced and demonstrated articles proving notability that I have just discussed. Cheers and much love x- Soulman1125 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see just enough material specifically devoted to Lola from reliable third-party sources to overcome GNG, but just barely. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, seems to just scoot into nobility with Vogue profile and other coverage, but we need to prune the sources. Her instagram is cited waaaay too much. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. On sources mentioned above. She is not as claimed the main topic of discussion of the billboard article, her mother is. The Telegraph piece is very weak, Annie's daughter did not go somewhere, woopdy doo. Teen Vouge is the girls taking about themselves. Italian vogue, another interview. Cosmo, very short piece. Express, very short piece. Sourcing is very poor and falls into tabloid. This page is puff cobbled together from mion mentions, puff, primary and non mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the Billboard article, I strongly disagree-- it is not a passing mention. I think the title of the article that Billboard chose ("Annie Lennox On Her 'Beautiful' Stage Debut With Daughter In 'Nostalgia' Concert Special") speaks pretty clearly for itself. Also, may I respectfully remind you and everyone that finding the content of a valid source personally boring is not a valid reason to discredit it as "weak" (and saying "woopdy doo"). Please refer to Wikipedia's Articles to Avoid in Deletion Discussions, specifically WP:IDL. Thanks x Soulman1125 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the headline does speak for itself. Only one person is named and it's not Lola. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the fact that the entire headline is about how she did a major performance with her daughter, Lola Lennox, is discounted because the title says "daughter" instead of her name? Even though the story itself references "Lola Lennox" multiple times and there are two paragraphs in the story directly devoted to describing our subject in the piece? This is not a passing mention. I see what you are trying to project, and where you are coming from, but I'm not buying the argument. This story counts as coverage of her in a major music newssource. It was the entire point of the article-- thus, the title. Cheers x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny how you can get so much from the headline that is simply not there. And once again you are lying about the content. Do you realize that people can actually read the article for themselves?

duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know people can actually read the article for themselves. I hope they do, I don't think all would agree with your reading of it-- as evidenced by how many users have examined my thoughts and the article itself and voted keep. Saying "once again you are lying about the content" is a personal attack, one of many in these discussions despite my repeated attempts to ask for civility from you, and I find them very disheartening. Please keep in mind that the comments from each of us are both recorded and this is the final time I will civilly ask you to refrain from personal attack before seeking further action to resolve this behaviour. Thanks. Soulman1125 (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Some reputable sources about her, but weak sources such as Instagram and imdb.com need pruning. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 28. I know this is a third relist. If another admin wants to reclose this without waiting the full week, that's OK with me. Or we can just let it go until next week and hope a better consensus emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited, and while she's borderline notable she doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in any of these articles - the best one was the WSJ article, but then I realised it was about her sister. SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Duffbeerforme, or Redirect to Annie_Lennox#Personal_life where more mention can be made. The article is WP:Reference bombed, with no individual source sufficient. None are all of “in depth” and reliable and independent and a secondary source providing commentary. Many need pruning in obviously, but there is no end to the pruning and the article will be reduced to a stub. Verifiable, but not sufficiently covered for her own article. She may yet become Wikipedia-notable, but I feel this is unlikely with a career heading to modelling, modelling rarely generates fresh independent commentary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please keep in mind she is a musician in addition to a model. The article does state that she has been recorded as currently in the studio, so I would expect the possibility of more sources due to this than solely from her modelling career. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the independent secondary source talking about her as a musician? One that says she is good/bad/interesting, whatever? “Annie’s daughter played” is not commentary on the daughter. Lola needs her own reviews to be published. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is an article written by Julia Neel from British Vogue-- it states "Josephine de la Baume, Lola Lennox, Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." British Vogue is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another article that can contribute to WP:GNG, and I am going to add it to the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in WP:GNG with note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in WP:GNG shows, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage. Please also review my comment below introducing the previously uncited four pages of secondary, independent, and reliable material from Teen Vogue-- one that goes into detail about the subject's basic information. Thanks for your friendly discussion. I hope you find these useful in your analysis. Cheers and much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK this is better than trivial, almost there. Can you link and quote the “Teen Vogue” comment, I’m not finding it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, SmokeyJoe. Sure thing regarding Teen Vogue-- give me a few minutes to write you back as the text in the screen capture is likely hard for you to read (the scans of the pages are tiny!)-- but it is there, is readable, and does exist in print. Thanks for your patience. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Sorry for the delay. Here are the screen caps from Evonne Gambrell's piece in Teen Vogue: First page http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/208218/tali-lennox-and-lola-lennox-gallery.jpg?1357499987. Second and third page: http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/208223/annie-lennox-and-tali-lennox-gallery.jpg?1357499985. Fourth and fifth page: http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/208228/annie-lennox-and-tali-lennox-gallery.jpg?1357499984. Here are a few things we can gather from Evonne's words in the profile: 1) She is the daughter of Annie Lennox (Quote, page 2: "Annie Lennox rocked the eighties with her gender bending style-- but her daughters Tali and Lola are finding a rhythm of their own." 2) Lola and her sister Tali are from London: ("Quote, page 3: "declares the Londoner.") 3) Lola is a classical singer (Quote, page 5: "Despite such feuds, the classical singing musician defiantly beats to the march of her own drum.") In addition, there is also a lot describing her fashion sense (It is Teen Vogue, ha)-- which doesn't necessarily need to be written in her Wikipedia article, obviously-- but many of the passages are indeed secondary and in Gambrell's own words and analysis. It is five pages in a printed, independent, secondary, and reliable source that we can definitely use parts of to piece together our article appropriately, and, I believe, lends our subject towards WP:GNG when we look specifically at the official guidelines and definitions closely. Thanks for taking the time to respond and examine and, again, I hope you find them helpful in your analysis. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Also, as this conversation is getting a bit splintered and hard to keep track of-- please see my additional Vogue Italia reference at the bottom of the discussion in addition to this. Thanks again and Cheers! x Soulman1125 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Just making sure I'm not missing something, but there's only one sentence in that article that talks about her specifically - did I miss something, or how is that significant coverage? SportingFlyer talk 08:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SportingFlyer, I would call that sentence “more than trivial”, but “less than significant”. I have never seen agreement on the threshold of significant coverage, but I think that “two sentences” is an extreme lower limit to even consider. I wish to concede that as far as one sentence goes, that is a pretty good sentence. Not enough for a stand-alone article, I recommend using it to expand for coverage in her mother’s article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: But SmokeyJoe, this British Vogue combined with the other two sources I provided at the bottom should pass WP:GNG alone, don't you think? And if it does-- she should have her own page per guidelines. The Italian Vogue article has enough secondary information in it alone to create an entire profile of who she is and why she is significant. Why would we throw all of that information in an already lengthy Annie Lennox page and convolute it when when our subject passes WP:GNG for a smaller but more organized solo article? I respectfully ask you to please consider my reasoning down the page re: Italian Vogue and look at how this source perfectly fits guidelines-- we have enough secondary information to make an article for our subject, and there is significant coverage in multiple sources per the definitions (it may be contentious, but as far as what the guidelines explicitly read, they do pass-- although British Vogue may be on the very barely pass end, it's still a pass)... What official definition exists that would tell us to delete this page to the contrary? Please review The Italian Vogue sourcing: https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625 There is a TON of information here that is very, very clearly significant secondary, independent, and reliable that I went into detail to explain further below this conversation. A previous user dismissed the whole thing as a primary source interview-- but description of it is plainly false upon further inspection. It is in fact, an entire write up on our subject-- one that included a secondary source write-up, photos from a fashion shoot, and a separate primary interview all together. I think that's a pretty perfect example of sources to base our article on. Again, I ask you to consider my arguments here before you make your final decision. Thanks very much for your perspective. I look forward to hearing your views. Maybe I have missed something, I would love to be enlightened. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: @SportingFlyer: Also my friends, why are we debating what the word "significant" means? That is not what is to be defined here for our analysis of the articles. Wikipedia official guidelines have already defined "significant coverage" for us: Again, directly from WP:GNG, significant coverage is defined explicitly as "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." The sourcing in British Vogue and Italian Vogue especially is more than a trivial mention (look at the official example of trivial mention: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." I don't believe you could argue British Vogue, Teen Vogue, and the Italian Vogue sources cover our subject as that sentence covers "Three Blind Mice"? So it is more than a trivial mention, but does not have to be the main subject of the article. That requirement is fulfilled by all three sources. They all also allow us to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Check and check. So, each of these sources individually passes the the bar to meet the definition of "significant coverage". No where in official guidelines does it say how many words or sentences must be used to parlay the information, simply that we must be able to collect detailed information from them, which, even in the British Vogue, we most definitely can, as I previously demonstrated. The Italian Vogue article does that for an entire page, as the whole write up is plainly about her. All parts cited for our Wiki entry are from lines of information that are secondary information that is from an independent and reliable source. These help her pass multiple sources for WP:GNG. So why, per guidelines, would we not give this subject its own page? Thanks again for listening and look forward to hearing from you. Hope you find my analysis to be worthy of agreement. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed above the Italian Vogue piece is an interview, which are viewed negatively for WP:GNG purposes since it's not necessarily secondary. As noted the British Vogue piece is very brief. I'd be fine with a redirect per SmokeyJoe. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: With great respect, I believe the contention in your statement very much conflates the official guidelines rules per analysis of secondary and primary sources-- and leaves the idea that "the [entire] Italian Vogue piece is an interview, which are viewed negatively for WP:GNG" actually quite incorrect. This is false because this article merely contains a video interview inside of a much larger secondary piece, which should not be disregarded as primary when it is clearly not. Not all elements in the article are the video interview, and what is especially crucial is that all of the specific statements we are actually citing from the source in question for our Wikipedia article are indeed from a secondary source, they are the Vogue author Barbara Frigerio's own words and analysis. Just because an article may contain elements that are primary (any words spoken by Lola Lennox in the video interview) does not mean that every statement cited in the article is from a primary source. You are discounting the entire Italian Vogue article as primary when official guidelines explicitly tell us we should not. In official guideline WP:PSTS it very clearly and explicitly states: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Following this guideline allows us to examine the entire Italian Vogue piece and source our secondary information explicitly and solely from Barbara Frigerio's own words and analysis, and there is basically the entire sum of information we need about Lola Lennox's entire life and why she is notable in there to then create the skeleton of our article from secondary, independent, and reliable information. The very explicit reason we need this is because of the rule for WP:NOR and because we have Barbara Frigerio to interpret the primary information for us and explain it in her own secondary words and analysis-- we do not have to do any original research to create our article, as she has done it for us, and the source is both independent and reliable. She even explicitly states her own analysis that Lola Lennox is a "young fashion icon" and is "well-known for her talent in fashion." She also explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. I think upon further inspection, and after reviewing the specific points from the guidelines I have laid out for you here, I believe you should agree with them and my arguments clearly laid forth here in good faith. This is clearly enough to build our article from independent, secondary, and reliable sourcing-- and is perhaps the biggest piece that helps our subject pass WP:GNG. Hope you have an excellent day. With respect and much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Hi SportingFlyer, I don't want to speak for SmokeyJoe but I posted my reply to your concern below, and he posted his response after that. I feel he may have concurred with my comments to you regarding the article? I don't want to speak for him so I will let him do that, but please see my comments directly to you below regarding this-- it may clear things up for your concern. Thanks and cheers! x Soulman1125 (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only one sentence - hardly significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 02:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than one sentence-- and there is a lot of information packed into those lines that can be extracted for the article. As I already noted-- where in the official guidelines can you prove that this does not count? Again, significant coverage is defined in official guidelines as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That's the direct quote from WP:GNG, not a community unvetted opinion essay that too often float in these discussions as the real definitions. It's definitely not a trivial mention, it is more than that-- it may not be the main topic of the article, but it does not need to be. Significant coverage is defined as the area in between both of those gauges quite explicitly. Thanks Soulman1125 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Vogue.co.uk article literally has only one sentence directly covering her in a list of about a dozen people talking about "up and coming stars" seven years ago. It's plainly trivial coverage not suitable for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SportingFlyer-- I hear your concern, and as you may personally think the article loses merit for notability because of its age-- but under official guidelines, it very explicitly does not: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. That section states that notability of the subject does not diminish because of when it received notable coverage-- so I believe that argument is moot in standing with the official guidelines, which is what our decisions must be based on. Also there is not one sentence-- there are two-- one in the opening paragraph that describes "Lola Lennox" as A) "a musical talent" and B) that Vogue believes she is "one to watch in 2011". The image and caption describing her also tells us C) Her age D) that she is a musician E) her mother is Annie Lennox F) her genre is "electro pop fusing classical sounds" G) She is a model H) She has modelled for Topshop and Prada. That is way too much direct information about the subject to be considered a trivial mention, despite, very admittedly, its brevity. Again, the specific definition from official guidelines WP:GNG states very explicitly that "'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." This reference addresses the topic directly and detail, so much so that we can find out eight very different and specific pieces of information about the subject so that we can build the article with the provided secondary evidence. This allows us to not need original research to write the article, as British Vogue, combined with Teen Vogue and the other sources, has done the work for us, to then collect and create the whole article. British Vogue is also reliable, independent, and a secondary source and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Again, I believe this reference allows us to write the article from correct secondary sources, and definitely applies to WP:GNG when we look very specifically at the official guidelines as they are defined. Appreciate your discussion and hope you find my thoughts worthy of your consideration. Cheers. Soulman1125 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can find in depth, reliable, secondary sources that talk about this person and not family. The sources I can find and in the article have been already dissected above and do not show GNG. Valeince (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an article that has WP:SIGCOV, but was not properly cited and previously included as such in the article. The Teen Vogue profile on the subject does go in depth-- with the author from Teen Vogue speaking on the subject with her own words and analysis for four pages. Teen Vogue is both independent and reliable, and these four pages of content on the subject contain content that is indeed secondary as per official guideline WP:PSTS. Please keep in mind that sources can contain both primary and secondary content as per official guidelines despite having an interview as part of the material ("A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as quoted in official guideline WP:PSTS) The original citation directed the link to a section of the piece that only contained a photo of the subject with brief primary quotes-- Instead, here is a direct link to the secondary sourcing of text from the author's own writing in depth on the subject from Teen Vogue for your consideration. First and second page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346365. Third and fourth page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346353. I believe this should solve the concerns raised by the last three editors for at least one WP:SIGCOV article. In combination with the Vogue Italia article specifically, and other articles (although some may not be the sole topic of the article, but are more than trivial mention) I believe these together should pass WP:GNG Thanks very much and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that I have also found another new piece of significant coverage by Julia Neel in British Vogue to add to the article, and should also be applied to demonstrate the subject's WP:GNG. The article states "Josephine de la Baume, Lola Lennox, Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." British Vogue is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another new article that can be added, and can contribute to WP:GNG, I am going to boldy include it in the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in WP:GNG with note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in WP:GNG shows, as we can extract eight important and distinct pieces of information about the subject to contribute in building our article from appropriate sourcing, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage towards WP:GNG. Much love to all and hope this is helpful in your assessment. Soulman1125 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment @SmokeyJoe:@SportingFlyer:@Valeince: Here is again another article for your consideration that explicitly talks in detail about our subject-- this time in Italian Vogue by Barbara Frigerio. Vogue Italia is independent, reliable, and in the lines extracted from this article, secondary (the words are Barbara Frigerio's own). https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625. In this article we can extract: Lola is A) A model. B) Daughter of Annie Lennox C) Father is Uri Fruchtmann D) Sister is Tali Lennox E) Her parents divorced in 2000 (already cited in Personal Life section). F) Lola is a singer. G) Lola went to a prestigious music school like her mother Annie. H) That school was the Royal Academy of Music H) She has modelled for Vanity Fair, Jalouse, and Topshop. I) She plays piano and writes music. J) She is from London. Barbara also states her analysis that our subject is a "young fashion icon", is "well-known for her talent in fashion", explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. All of this information is solely and explicitly from Barbara Frigerio's own passages, and are clearly statements that are secondary sourcing. Remember as per official guidelines "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as directly quoted in WP:PSTS. This, in addition to the newly discovered article from British Vogue, and the correct referencing from Teen Vogue alone I believe should settle your desire for secondary sourcing that can be used to build the article's base appropriately per explicit official guidelines, without original research, and establish our subject's passing of WP:GNG. Thanks for taking the time to respond and examine and, again, I hope you find them helpful in your analysis. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the above argument is a good explanation of why the person is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete marginally notable at best, and the promotional pressure is relentless. This is not worth the community's effort to maintain NPOV for. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poor article, also missing WP:BIO, the supreme policy. Complete waste of time on this Afd. scope_creep (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BIO. StrikerforceTalk 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although notability is not inherited, it would be rare for someone with family connections like these not to be in the public eye. I agree it's borderline, but I've seen far worse things accepted into the encyclopedia. However, the external link to her management must go! Deb (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deb, that is a "Wikipedia is full of bad, gossipy content, so lets have more" argument. Why in the world would you argue that way? I will note that the creator of this page has a glaring WP:APPARENTCOI as is obvious from the amount of unsourced, badly sourced, promotional content and detail they have dumped into WP, which they have adamantly denied. I also do not understand why you are supporting that behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I judge each case on its own merits. Deb (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, other stuff exists is not a viable argument in most situations. StrikerforceTalk 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the argument I used - what I was pointing out that the fact several people think an article doesn't demonstrate notability doesn't mean that it won't get through a deletion debate. I would add that I think this is a similar case to Robin-John Gibb. Deb (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but I've seen far worse things accepted into the encyclopedia would seem to be synonymous with "other stuff like this exists, so it must be okay"? StrikerforceTalk 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to take a different view, but not to harass people who disagree with you. I won't be changing my vote. Deb (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall asking you to do any such thing? I'm also not harassing you. I've simply pointed out the flaw in your rationale, which is certainly not anything that would rise to the level of "harassment". To be honest, I'm actually engaging you to attempt to understand your argument, not change it. StrikerforceTalk 20:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and many above, particularly Duffbeerforme. Per WP:ATD, a redirect to Annie's article might be appropriate, and I would encourage anyone whose position was "weak keep" to consider that alternative. We don't need more weak article's on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another BLP where the coverage does not seem to meet the significant coverage standard. --Bejnar (talk) 00:05, 9 October 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. Article saved through successful application of WP:BOGOF -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fergal Stapleton

Fergal Stapleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG one of a number of possibly paid for articles without references from 2007 Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete – Unless article can be fixed drastically (e.g. references, establishing notability). Quick google search turned up nothing useful. Redditaddict69 21:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 21:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 21:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw one source, but it's an interview. The gross promotional nature of the article, the lack of encyclopedic content, and that fact that Wikipedia is not here to host CV's, are all detrimental points.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
looking around a bit, I found a very recent article in the Guardian that is quite good. Changing my previous delete !vote to a comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a database search, and he has been reviewed in Artforum and other publications with some consistency (every year or two) going back to 90s. The article might be a WP:TNT though. --Theredproject (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TRP, which database do you use for such searches? I wuld like to try that myself.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any sources that overcome the tests for notability and this is clearly a bought and paid for article. It needs to go. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough coverage on the artist, his work and exhibitions - [62][63][64][65][66], his collaboration with Rebecca Warren can be sourced to a few articles - [67][68][69][70], he has exhibited widely, information about his many exhibitions can be found at the Saatchi site - [71]. It should satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be fixed. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to sustain an article, for example, https://frieze.com/article/fergal-stapleton. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be rewritten, but more than enough coverage to source a decent article. Curiocurio (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on unincluded coverage Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 3 October 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. AGK ■ 11:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rah Crawford

AfDs for this article:
Rah Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G4 has been contested on this article. Fails on WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The New York Times sources that are reliable, have been discussed at previous deletion discussion too and were deemed trivial. Draft has been rejected twice in last one year. Hitro talk 14:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete no one but the article subject could have propelled the creation of such a flattering and detailed promotional piece, built on a foundation of passing mentions, minor accomplishments and articles published in sketchy sources. Fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Given the serious intent to creating a false persona of success here, as well as the previous deletion AFD, I would suggest SALT also.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on ensuing discussion, my stance is more of a weak Delete. - I found independent coverage that includes a feature article about the subject in Philadelphia City Paper here. Mentions in three New York Times articles, one for a building mural the subject painted, here, another in a review of a Brooklyn museum here, and the third for a painting of a grinning man included in a gallery showing here, do not alone hold up as significant coverage. But they add to notability when coupled with several other media outlet coverage. Also helping meet notability guidelines is the subject's inclusion in being named one of 11 City of Philadelphia creative ambassadors. I worked on the article and added a couple more citations, but it could use more paring down and some reorganizing. Still, based on the varied coverage as it stands now, the article passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BASIC says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which is the case here. Also, please explain how this artist meets WP:NARTIST? He does not meet any of the criteria. The Nytimes sources are the definition of trivial, passing mentions. Here is the all that that Times sources above say
  1. From one courtyard you can look up at Rah Crawford’s “We Are Golden,” depicting Bushwick residents including a pigtailed girl with an outstretched arm holding a red balloon;
  2. an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard.
  3. Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility.
The Times coverage totals 55 words. The "my City Paper" source is the only decent source. You can dream all you want, but the notability standards are not met by a long shot. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Three inclusions in New York Times art reviews are hardly "trivial" or "passing mentions," and your saying so does not make it true. By the way, I do not "dream" about notability standards that by my understanding are clearly met. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying that 18 or more words (55/3, roughly) in the New York Times is SIGCOV? What about 16 or 17 words, is that still SIGCOV? It's clearly trivial coverage; two of them are not even complete sentences! Please see the WP:GNG guideline where trivial mentions are explained in an example: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." (22 words). The problem here is that 55 words in the NYT is not significant coverage and does not contribute the subject's notability. As the GNG says" "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. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The New York Times has twice been ranked the No. 1 newspaper in the U.S., thus the untriviality of being included in a Times arts review. That was my point. No need for a lengthy response or reiterating definitions I am quite familiar with. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not answer how he meets WP:ARTIST, which is a high standard. I agree that the Times is good. 150 words in the New York Times would indeed be excellent coverage. A single sentence, or half a sentence is trivial. It means the reporter probably spent less than a minute writing it. It seems that being familiar with definitions and understanding them are two different things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As WP:NCORP makes clear with examples, coverage in The New York Times is generally reliable, but not always significant. A mention in a sentence fragment is not significant coverage. --Vexations (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG per AuthorAuthor's sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete PROMO overstuffed with sources that look better than they are. recalling that he is from Philadelphia and lives in NYC, the sources that look good turn out to be local. this NYTimes article [72] ran in the local real estate section of the Times. The Philadelphia City Paper is celebrating a local boy. So we're left with a 2008 Times review by art critic Holland Cotter, of the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts, in which Crawford got half a sentence: "an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard."[73]. (the article in the Las Vegas Sun is labeled "submitted by Rah Crawford.") and a different 2008 review of a museum show at the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts by Times critic Monica Drake in which [74] he gets an image and a sentence: "Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility." fails WP:ARTIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many reliable sources available on the subject.WO1977 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)— WO1977 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Note that this SPA is the creator of this page .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the refs in the article don't establish notability, he's mentioned but there's no sigcov. I checked books on the assumption everything useful from news is already in the article, nothing much there. Szzuk (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consenus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cites arthistoryarchive.com, a wiki to which apparently anyone can contribute: (Submitting Artist Biographies: If you want to help out you can. Please research and write artist biographies. Send the biography as a text document (no Word Docs or RTFs please) and attach any specific artworks that should accompany it. Please use our rules for Labeling Art. Send the text document and images to us via email. If approved, your article will be added to the Art History Archive within 1-3 days. "Note: If you are an art historian or an art student we can also post a link to your website under your name.). E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only in depth maybe-independent coverage seems to be from one local paper. (Philadelphia City Paper was a former alternative weekly newspaper in Philadelphia.) Else, we have mentions. NPIC-Art does not seem to be notable either as a movement or an organization. There is no other stated basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The sources mentioned by AuthorAuthor are, for the most part, trivial mentions. The MyCityPaper source is low quality both because it's local (WP:AUD) and because of the unknown editorial oversight; the article also seems to be largely an interview.
In addition to being deleted once already, this was recreated as a draft, which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it with template:db-g7. While it's true that WP:AfC is an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway is WP:GAMING the system. Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio. Edit comments (currently deleted) like, Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized. :) make it clear that there's undisclosed WP:COI. In view of the persistent recreation, this should salted to avoid future abuse. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 4 October 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. Tone 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Sur

As Sur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, fails WP:V and pin points to RAK city area of Uraibi. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete who knows where that is. Szzuk (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 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) Szzuk (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Count Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide

AfDs for this article:
Count Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Article appears to contain no reliable secondary sources. Similar article was deleted in Jan 17 for lack of notability. Recommend merging into House of Iturbide, which was the decision last time. Flyte35 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we confine the article to the information covered in independent news sources Excélsior, Milenio, and Noticieros Televisa, it appears that would leave us with about two lines about this subject. That could easily be merged into House of Iturbide. That's why we merged the article the last time this came up. Flyte35 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I seem to recall a consensus that heads of defunct monarchies are presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any such discussion. This seems to fail basic notability guidelines for people, since the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited, but if there was some prior discussion about this, that would be interesting to see.Flyte35 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see the argument, that a person first in line for a defunct throne shouldn't be notable per se. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read the keep !votes above and the responses thereto, I concur in that consensus: heads of deposed dynasties are notable ipso facto in real life as reflected in coverage of their claims and/or doings, and a list of coverage having been provided in earlier discussion means that sources are available for an article distinct from general inclusion in House of Iturbide. There has been discussion of coverage of royalty, reigning and deposed, in the past, for e.g. here, that I think is more compelling and useful than the blanket Notability is not inherited essay (not a guideline), because it recognizes and accepts what people do find notable, rather than attempting to restrict Wikipedia articles to what we are told we ought to consider notable. FactStraight (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's relevant. The discussion you're citing has to do with the decision to retain an article about someone whose father actually was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979. Richard von Götzen seems to be the great-great-great grandson of someone who ruled Mexico for 11 months in the 1820s; it's hardly equivalent. The discussion you cite also pertains to a woman with at least 10 articles from reliable secondary sources about her. She is notable. This person is much more obscure. The fact that the decision in that case was to keep the article doesn't mean being a member of a family with some claim to any throne is notable and worthy of an article. It's the lack of secondary sources here that are a problem. Flyte35 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 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) gidonb (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maliz E. Beams

Maliz E. Beams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find the coverage to demonstrate notability. Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 21 September 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. Tone 13:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Katrina

Heidi Katrina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professional wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 20 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_September_20&oldid=860446825"