Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 January	15 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Currie

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

A local minister (and blogger) with local WP:MILL coverage of his ministry. No claims of importance or significance, nor any coverage more relevant than [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte non=notable local minister.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A web bio is linked from the article and details nothing notable. Szzuk (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Meisel

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

Created by a sock; no claim of notability and article is extremely promotional. I see one good reference; a NYTimes article from 2004 [2] that seems suspiciously like a puff piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I searched on google news and it is returning just enough for WP:BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In its current form, is not the responsibility of a sock but a partially-declared PAID editor, and there are multiple claims of potential notability within the article. There is, however, nothing for which evidence, including the NYT story, appears to reach GNG or WP:NCORP (Liontex, Tek, Menus-to-go, real estate development, dealing with Crohn's, getleverage, speaking, consulting, PapierTile, ...). Nor am I seeing any RS reviews for his works online apart from maybe this (which is a bit problematic as the reviewer is identified as a journalism student), so NBOOK/NAUTHOR isn't satisfied. Nor do I believe that the aggregate reaches an NPOINTS keep (including the use of his picture on the cover of Evil Empire). Plus, in the article's (post-2017) form, its sourcing is overwhelmingly PRIMARY, and its content promotional. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking encyclopaedic value and failing WP:NPERSON. The article has been created by a sockpuppet and cultivated by a professional promoter. Let's hope that, at least, the check clears. -The Gnome (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Goertzel

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

Notability concerns for this person; article reads like a resume. References about him seem to be mostly his own content. He appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast but that doesn't demonstrate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has (co-)written 14 books, one was reviewed in the New York Times; has been written about in the Wall Street Journal [3] and twice in the New York Times [4] [5]. AxelBoldt (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per 'Notability (academics)'. It reads a little like an ad but still a notable person. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep. You don't have to agree with him to see that he is notable. Books, conferences - he was on Joe Rogan because he is a known quantity in singularity and transhumanist circles with a recognizable point of view.Wetwarexpert (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reviews of his work seem limited but there's a couple of additional ones[6][7]. For weight against WP:NACADEMIC, citations of his work are at Google Scholar. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayavani

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

Article appears to be an attempt at promotion for an actress who has not yet generated enough evidence of notability in significant and reliable media sources. All sources found are agent's listings or minor video clips. Note that her Filmography in the article is full of redlinks to films that are presumably non-notable in themselves, with bluelinks going to articles about things other than films. She is not listed on the page for the film Yamadonga, at least not under this name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep [she is notable actress u can check once i have added reference]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a few more bluelinks at the te-wiki article, but of those where she appears, she appears to be a minor player. Nor do searches for "జయవాణి" prove particularly fruitful (she's different from Uma Maheswari [Sukesh]). One oddity is that there are some very spiky view counts on her YT channel -- www.youtube.com/channel/UC5jOJVJQwckyVKupXR4fLcw. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Mercer

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. He's a journalist in the gothic scene, he's also authored several gothic books and run his own magazine. I found a couple of refs [8] [9]. The refs look marginal at best. He's had quite a varied career but I'm not convinced he passes GNG. Szzuk (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable books, used as many refs in wikipedia itself. - Altenmann >talk 07:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm familiar with him mainly for his work for Melody Maker, but he seems to get most coverage for his writing on the goth subculture. There's reasonably significant coverage here, and quite a few serious books quoting his writing: [10], [11], [12], [13]. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's notable, but in a niche category. It's still encyclopedic. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Francischini

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

Yes I am proposing deletion on this and here is why: beyond the extremely vague, unverifiable statements (yes, I looked) about her career, the dead links that redirect to GoDaddy and some “earn gold” scam, nothing presents notability at all. No reliable source can even be found for being on the cover of Elle Argentina, if we grasp for straws. Winning a local, un-notable modeling contest is all that’s left, with no source at that. It isn’t as if that contest was something on the calibre of Elite Model Look or Ford Supermodel of the World. Trillfendi (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NMODEL. -The Gnome (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE Engine

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

Engine does not show independent notability. All sources/mentions of it are simply "this game will be using the RE Engine". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to talk about yet. Popcornduff (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I’ll never understand people’s tendency to spin out game engine articles like this. There’s nothing to be said here that wouldn’t be better suited as a sentence in the articles for the respective games articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator here. Your opinion is legitimate, but there is no "tendency" in the moves I made. The article was created with the intention of making it a stub (for which a specific "Capcom stub" template exist) so that other users - me included - would improve its quality over time. At the basis, of course, I thought the game engine was perfectly notable to have an article so I created it. And that's all. Lone Internaut (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but this engine fails WP:N and thus no article should have been created for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What can I tell? That's not what I thought. Lone Internaut (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lone Internaut: As soon as there's stuff to write about, we can recreate the article and add it. There's no rush. Popcornduff (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff, I think you are absolutely right about that. It's always a matter of time. Like the fact that now the article is on Wikidata and that, as I originally thought, other users are contributing to improve it. I am still sure this does not change much, but it's still better than nothing. And as you said there is no rush so... it's always a matter of time. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I said “tendency”, I didn’t mean Lone Internaut specifically, but rather, the tendency of editors in a general sense do it. I wasn’t attempting to single you out. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure about that, but being article creator I felt like to distance me from that "tendency" and give you background about the whole thing. Just saying. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Redirect to Resident Evil 7#Development. I can imagine the engine becoming notable in the future, but as of now all the coverage I know of is mostly tied to its use in that game. Smells like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED JOE BRO 64 23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Reads like an ad for Capcom rather than anything of encyclopaedic value. Fans of video games often create articles in the manner of shrines. -The Gnome (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Michael Brooks

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

He is an author and translator. This is a BLP with just one reference in the article to what appears to be a novel he translated. WP:Before is showing he has written several books however they are little read. Tagged for notability since 2011. Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:NOTABILITY. The article seems to depend heavily on the authors blurbs that go with the books.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the sole reference for a real-life bio is a work of fiction by Harry Turtledove (known for alternate history) we have a WP:V issue. It also seems he doesn't pass GNG or NAUTHOR per my BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears in the references for 1100 en-wiki articles, mostly due to his translation of German U-boat commanders of World War II. There's a limited interview with him here -- now retired so unlikely notability will increase. Otherwise there's a lack of sources about him or his translations or his authored works (15 citations to Hitler's Nuclear Weapons listed[14]). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Mukerjee

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

Time for the fourth AFD, I guess. ~~This is in dire need of WP:TNT~~- created by yet another paid editor in violation of the TOS, this is nothing more than a massive fluff piece. See past afds: 1, 2, 3. I redacted my original statement that TNT was appropriate. I think deleting entirely and salting is more appropriate as there is no evidence she is notable despite claims she is "well known" the fact that there are 68+ sources in this article and none of them are independent, in depth or reliable, combined with virtually no useful sources in my WP:BEFORE leads me to believe that not only is this typical WP:PAID editing but they've attempted to pad her "resume" with nonsense sources ands he is not actually notable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that I've assessed the sources on the talk page and am currently finishing all 68 of them. Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is advertising; should be salted. Britishfinance (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom clearly advertising.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's blatant advertising, highly POV article that when cut down to the bare bones probably isn't notable. Given the full history, WP:TNT at a minimum, but delete and salt just to get to the near certain end result. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt-Per all above.∯WBG^converse 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tech News Today#History. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News 2Night

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

Canceled podcast of no importance or merit; not noteworthy. Testspure (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs are primary or trivial mentions. Google news isn't returning anything. Szzuk (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject lacks verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend redirect to Tech News Today, which is the podcast this was merged into. The article for Tech News Today also mentions Tech News 2Night. Mz7 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tech News Today or TWiT.tv. I would support a merge but the content is not verifiable, as said by Gnome. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Both WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP do favor redirects over deletion. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A straight Redirect would be an acceptable alternative to Deleting.

Note that the WP:CHEAP essay does not "favor redirects over deletion (to quote: Creating redirects from existing articles can be valid alternatives to pursuing deletion discussions, saving discussion time where a redirect is a legitimate and likely outcome. Consensus should still be sought via discussion), nor does the WP:ATD policy (to quote WP:ATD-R: Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required). Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Roberson

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've improved the article a bit and added more sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of singnificant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. The Tennessean and Nashville Post are OK with me, but I need maybe one more. I don't find SB Nation as a whole to be generally reliable. There's a lot of fan-type blogging there, but I make exceptions for some of their authors with substantial prior credentials. No indication that is worthy here. The CBS Sports coverage is fantasy sports related, and not that in-depth. He does not meet WP:NHOOPS either, but GNG does not require that.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Coverage is from two Nashville (which is where Vanderbilt is located) newspapers and consists of typical local sports coverage--something pretty much every Division I starter would receive. I don't believe that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Needs work but the consensus is to keep. Tone 20:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Newcomb

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

An unreferenced WP:BLP. Tagged for notability since 2010. A possible advert for his books. The books themselves are fairly niche but well received on Amazon. WP:Before isn't returning anything, this may be because the name is quite common. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not promotional (not nearly polished enough) - probably just an author stub to begin with (and it is that now). I do suspect he passes WP:NAUTHOR - e.g. see recent coverage on his 1958 "Abandon Ship!" book - [15][16] referring to it as a classic. We use his 1961 book as a reference on Battle of Savo Island (a FA). His name does make BEFOREing a tad more difficult. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep . Passes NAUTHOR. Bokks are well known historical refs.- Altenmann >talk 07:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR in aggregate, though it doesn't look like there's a lot of RS biographical info out there (a limited amount of primary information may need to be used). Iwo Jima appears to have been reviewed in both Washington Post (flap quote) and New York Times Review of Books[17] as well as Flying Magazine [18], cited by 19 works including Flags of Our Fathers, and recommended for further reading by the writer of the Marine Corps's 50th Anniversary history of Iwo Jima.[19] Also namechecked in a Kirkus review for another book[20]. Abandon Ship was reviewed in at least NYTRB and Times Literary Supplement[21], further covered here[22], and its rerelease was on the NYT Bestseller list for a number of weeks[23][24]. Boston Uni holds his collection[25]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hydronium Hydroxide has already given some sources for reviews such as New York Times [26], I can also see many in addition for just his book on Iwo Jima, e.g. [27][28][29], therefore should qualify per WP:AUTHOR #3. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I will attempt to summarize the two opposing arguments, neither of which have consensus, in my view.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". Although this topic has received a significant amount of coverage in newspapers, that does not necessarily imply that the topic must be suitable for an encyclopedia (note: the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage, and many editors have claimed that this topic lacks those aspects needed for encyclopedic notability.

However, as other editors have pointed out, it is difficult to determine things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage soon after an event has occurred because insufficient time has passed; often, the most we can do is speculate. Many editors pointed to the wealth of news coverage this has received as a reason for keeping the article (i.e. satisfying WP:GNG) and as evidence of broader significance within the history of the Internet. Mz7 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@world_record_egg

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This occurrence has no enduring notability whatsoever. At best it should be a single line somewhere in the instagram article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP: I understand many editors proclaim to be a "troll" or "insignificant." However, it has set many records and has many accolaids. Instagram does not own, @world_record_egg, so having it under Instagram is taking away the success or the appreciation for the egg itself. If you just set the like record post for your IG post, would you wan't it under Instagram. The egg is a person and has it's own shop, verified check, and anything else it may need to have it's seperate article. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupaDudz (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — SupaDudz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note. Another deletion discussion regarding the same topic is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egg Gang.-- Flooded with them hundreds 18:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It is the most liked online post ever. It has broken numerous records. It has generated significant media coverage. As obscure as the nature of the article is, this is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs)

Why exactly, Greenleader(2), can this 2-line "article" not be incorporated as a factette in the Instagram article. Why exactly does it need its own article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve got to be kidding. Trillfendi (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect on the condition that there is truly extensive information about the egg on the wiki most liked insta page. No I was not joking, and the lack of arguments about notability shows that instead of the argument being about the coverage and significance of the page, instead editors have chosen to talk about the content of the page as a justifiable means for deletion. As ridiculous as it looks, it has broken numerous records; over 33 million as of typing this have liked the post! I would personally hope that there can be a page on this in the future, however accept the consensus is instead for an extensive section about the egg on the most liked insta post wiki page. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is predicated on the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. You possibly missed that bit. The consensus is not for "an extensive section about the egg on the most liked insta post wiki page". The consensus is merely get rid of this stupid article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resupporting keep and reverting the decision to redirect as opposed to my original points for keep. The subject of the article even now is still recieving media coverage, and appears to be perfectly in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest to sceptics that you check out Wiki's list of unusual articles; all valid pages but are a bit out of the ordinary, however nevertheless are just as deserving of having a page as some famous politician or celebrity. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are already two articles about this. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other AfD (which concerned the Instagram account behind the post) was closed with a speedy delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This merits, at most, a line in Instagram or List of most-liked Instagram posts. (Was anyone else disappointed by the title? I'd been hoping for, well, the world's largest egg.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This egg does not deserve an independent article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the significant coverage in the media as well as the fact it has the most likes ever on an Internet post means it has passed the basic notability guidelines? Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The egg post has accrued a significant amount of coverage in WP:RS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS - this has no enduring notability; there is no hope that this will be able to have significant expansion. Should just be mentioned in the Instagram article. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the egg has accrued significant coverage in a large number of reliable sources. Will normally WP:NOTNEWS (which is not a fleshed-out policy but rather part of WP:NOT) could be used to discount an article's notability, the fact the egg post is the most liked post in the history of the internet is a clear claim to significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SamHolt6, but it is not! It is second to "Despacito".-- Flooded with them hundreds 22:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flooded with them hundreds: the egg passed "Despacito" in likes earlier on 14 Jan. This is pending a WP:RS to confirm, of course. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6, Yes, you're right! I completely missed it because few days ago some bumbling fans were discussing how the song still had higher likes.-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that WP:NOTNEWS is policy, by virtue of that bit at the top of the page that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." This article is a text-book example of what wikipedia is not. Per my question to another keeper: exactly why can this not be covered adaquately in an instagram article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is a policy shortcut under the WP:NOT umbrella, but this is semantical; it remains policy. I think however that this topic is one of the exceptions (NOTNEWS throws the caveat usually in its text) given the claim to significance the article has. As for the WP:PAGEDECIDE inquest, I am of the view that the topic should remain a separate stub or start class article (which PAGEDECIDE alots for) on the basis of the sheer amount of coverage received.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per SamHolt6. This may be influenced by the fact that I like it, but I say let's not rush to delete it because it's already starting to gain attention from non-newsy sources like Guinness World Records. SITH (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: Evidently you’re unaware of Egg Gang. How many more “world record egg” pages will keep being created for this viral trend if we don’t get a handle on it?

Keep: While there are good arguements on both sides, I do think this article should remain in Wikipedia. While its topic is rather strange, it has become the most liked post/content on any social media platform, which is noteworthy. However, this article does need some cleanup and extension. This is not really the fault of any editor, this is simply because it has not had time to fully develop as a topic. However, if the topic does not further develop, or more contests like this appear it should be deleted. Also: I have been heard that there are multiple pages on this topic, I hope that they can be merged. AceTankCommander (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inclusion test for Wikipedia content is not just whether it's on the pop culture radar today — to warrant a Wikipedia article, what would have to be shown is a substantive reason why this would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance. That is, the question that needs to be answered, to make this notable enough for its own article, is why will people still care about it in 2029? Wikipedia's supposed to be about stuff that matters. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Bearcat says. Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "Ten-year test" is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The use of this "thought experiment" test is not required to warrant a Wikipedia article whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The decision to delete a page should not be decided by a small group's personal opinions about social media not being "real news." The account is clearly noteworthy, as a holder of at least three world records. Furthermore, it has been covered by the media hundreds of times by now, and it is very likely that it will continue to accrue significance as time continues. As to the argument that it should only be listed on the List of Most Liked posts page, I would argue that the account and its world record post should NOT be merged, as there is easily more to say about the account than a single number listing how many likes its post has. Grumpig (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Grumpig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DELETE IT!!! This is the 2nd page in one day about this egg account that has come across the AfD over this. We don’t need one page of this let alone two. The first page should have been merged or redirected to the List of Instagram records. “I started a joke” is not notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And that has now been deleted. "This similar article has been nominated for deletion" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Nixinova T C 06:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nixinova: It was literally the same, exact article with a different name. It wasn’t just a “similar” article. Wikipedia doesn’t allow two articles of one thing. Use your brain. Trillfendi (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable world record, and ample coverage in reliable sources about it. Dream Focus 04:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 04:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable for being the most.liked thing online and has even been picked up by the GWR. The arguments about duplication are irrelevant as those articles have been deleted and this is the only article about the topic now. Nixinova T C 06:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Merge into List of most-liked Instagram posts. CookieMonster755 ✉ 06:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. This is, alas, currently notable. In a few months I believe this decision should be reviewed, and we can decide then whether with the benefit of hindsight the "event" does or does not meet the criteria of being included on Wikipedia, but until then WP:DONTBEHASTY. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing on Wikipedia as "temporarily notable pending the need for future hindsight, just because it happens to currently be in the news" — either a thing has already attained enough notability to satisfy the ten-year test for permanent notability, or it's not notable enough for an article at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an EGG-cellent example of a slow news day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS, as this is not routine. There's a lot of analysis e.g. [30] [31]. wumbolo ^^^ 08:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep and revisit in a few months. Meets WP:GNG. Not sure what type of crystal ball some for deletion are using herein to predict that this will have no enduring notability. Where can I get one? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's making any predictions. What has to be shown, to qualify it for a Wikipedia article, is that it has already achieved something that already passes the ten-year test — it's not enough to say that we don't know that it won't still be a topic of interest in 2029, because that's not where the burden of proof lies: the burden of proof lies on showing that it will still be a topic of interest in 2029. And current "world record" status doesn't prove that, because the nature of social media is that this could easily have its record outdone three months from now and thus become a forgotten footnote to history by July. Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this will endure, not on anybody to prove that it won't. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:10 year test is oh so subjective, and requires forming subjective, speculative predictions. Furthermore, there's also a section there that begins with, "Just wait and see." Lastly, it says right atop the page, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." This subjective test is in no way required to qualify an article, nor should it be. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the "wait and see" isn't about "keep the article pending future evidence that it hasn't endured", it's about "wait until you can show that enduring significance has emerged before you start the article at all". Secondly, per WP:ONLYESSAY, we have policies in place to tell us what to do, and guidelines to tell us how we've decided our best practices for actually doing policies work in actual practice — so essays are still every bit as binding as policies are, in the absence of a really compelling reason to make a special exception to them. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uses sources like any other Wikipedia article would. Though it is a bit silly, and certainly an internet meme, this hasn't stopped well sourced articles like this from having existed before, especially as popular as this one is. If this can't be on Wikipedia, why can Nyan Cat? Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, there was actually a legal dispute over Nyan Cat, making that topic significant in a way that this one has not yet become. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Nearly A~~ Baker's dozen (speaking of eggs, see egg crate) WP:RS established that WP:GNG is met. That it is an Internet meme, which I don't care about, does not make it so devoid of worth that it should be deleted.

The merge proposal is a diversion and a Canard. Those articles have been deleted already.

No doubt the article will be renamed. But that is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The articles Instagram and List of most-liked Instagram posts still exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - enough info at List of most-liked Instagram posts, which is bad enough. WP should not become Guinness. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I don't think we should start a precedent of giving every internet sensation a page. This is not Ellen. Every internet sensation gets coverage in RS, that is why it is a sensation. But they inevitably fade away. This is also the first precedent I know of for making a page for a social media ACCOUNT. The article is not about the person behind it or the sensation that it got likes, but about the page itself. I just don't think this is what WP is for, ultimately. Anyway, that's all I have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cid, el campeador (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strangest !vote I've made to an AfD discussion, but Change the subject of the article, possibly by Move to something like "Instagram egg post" or something similar. I do believe the subject is notable, even if passing, but it doesn't focus on the right subject, as it should probably be about the post, and not the less-notable account that created the post. SemiHypercube 19:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Instagram egg post per SemiHypercube, if kept, which I have no opinion on. — CoolSkittle (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The move discussion is at Talk:@world_record_egg#Requested_move_15_January_2019, not here. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Change the subject of the article to that of the egg itself. It has received coverage from various publications such as CNN or Time. MikeOwen ^discuss 22:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is clearly Wikipedia page-deserving due to the fact that it details the most liked post on Internet history, a clearly encyclopedic topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutterwikipedia1230 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia. This article shouldn't be on Wikipedia in my opinion; it's not a suitable place for it. Ben5218 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, as it's well-sourced and has received a massive amount of coverage, but move per the RM on the article's talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently came upon this review [32] of the egg in Artnet. The review (while being an opinion piece) is art critic Ben Davis' take on the egg post and the trend of art in the wider internet-fueled culture. It is fairly different from other news stories concerning the egg in recent days.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG:

Thorne, Dan (14 January 2019). "Egg photo breaks Kylie Jenner's record for most liked image on Instagram". Guinness World Records. Retrieved 15 January 2019.
France, Lisa Respers (14 January 2019). "Meet the egg that broke Kylie Jenner's Instagram record". CNN. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
~~Hugh McIntyre (August 9, 2017). "Here Are All The Records 'Despacito' Broke On YouTube". Forbes. Retrieved 14 January 2019.~~ (struck 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
Ohlhieser, Abby (14 January 2019). "Congratulations to this egg on becoming Instagram's most-liked post ever". Washington Post. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
"Egg Photo Bests Kylie Jenner for Most Popular Instagram Post". Time. Retrieved 14 January 2019.(added 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))

Balkywrest (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: either i am missing something, or the Hugh McIntyre/9 August 2017 article doesn't mention the egg at all. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Balkywrest (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS--Zorro naranjo (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Russian Wikipedia briefly kept it with reasonable rationing ("kept preliminary" for 3 months considering heavy social coverage). Russian Wikipedia was wise on the subject so let English Wikipedia, the most advanced one, be wise also. --ssr (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with ssr. No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The egg's photographer has been interviewed [33], and there have been copycats [34]. wumbolo ^^^ 19:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is exactly WP:NOTNEWS where a a bunch of media sources always cover recent internet trends of no lasting impact. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the present era of overhyped internet phenomena. Brandmeister^talk 22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no reason why this can't just be mentioned on List of most-liked Instagram posts or List of most-liked online posts and not made into an article. Once we start making articles for individual Instagram posts, where will it end? Sure, this one is the most liked, but what about the second most liked, or the third? What if a certain post is famous even if it doesn't hold a record? Where will we draw the line? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an utilitarian version of Reddit. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The egg is an internet phenomenon and a fascinating example of the way modern society can interact in the internet. While it is possible that the egg will fade into obscurity, the article can always be deleted in the future. If things like Despacito have an article, there's no reason that this shouldn’t. However, the name should probably be changed. Coyotedomino (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Practically everything is, or at least can be, an internet phenomenon. This is not a fascinating example of how modern society can interact in the internet. It's just a picture of an egg. Additionally, the argument: "We can always delete it later" is absurd. We can not simply create articles that lack notability, because one day it might be notable. If that day ever comes, it can be made then. If we start making articles about every internet anomaly, Wikipedia would be flooded with thousands of meaningless articles. Remember Youtube Rewind 2018? That was a little over a month ago. It's already completely out of the public eye. Lastly, you must admit that the comparison with Despacito is incredibly weak. That is a song, with a cast, crew, production team, budget, etc. It is a well defined entity, that exists independent of any specific platform. Many songs have entries even without the notability that Despacito had. This post, on the other hand, is nothing more than a picture on a social media website. It's entire existence is limited to a specific page on a specific website. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind? --NoCOBOL (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there's no consensus here and there isn't going to be one. I count around 20 keeps and a few less deletes, nowhere close to unanimous. Close? Nixinova T C 01:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in waiting for an disinterested editor to close this by their own volition. Further, AfDs are not a head-count. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Garbage content and useless information. Yes, it’s my opinion. Bohbye (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No policy based reason given for deletion. Balkywrest (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't there is a rule that requires reasons to be based on policy. Policies are non-binding anyway, so if a user feels that the information on a page is useless, that is just as valid as a policy saying so. They both have the same power if other users agree, and conversely, are both meaningless if other users don't agree. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Removed comment per below. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This exact argument is listed as one to avoid in deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Edit conflict- Unneccessary comment on another user's vote. Whoever closes the AfD can weigh the value of votes themselves. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an interesting tidbit of internet lore, and the sources clearly are there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of most-liked Instagram posts. Its notability is mostly temporary; given a few weeks or months, something else is going to take its place. Risker (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will say that this does serve as a good record for how silly humanity can be in this social media age. Nevertheless, on policy grounds it does meet GNG so I will have to say keep on this (even though I think it does not reflect well on the people who were influenced to share it just because others told them to). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a artical with historical signifigance seeing it is not only the most-liked page on Instagram but in the entire Internet. --Epicneter (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change the subject of the article to that of the post itself and not the account, which is notable as the most liked internet post. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia bestrides a delicate balance between keep and delete. If this egg were to fall, it might never be put back together again, even with the help of all Wikipedia. -- GreenC 00:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References to children's fairy tales do not justify keeping an absurd article. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is worth being entered into Wikipedia for history purposes. I understand in a few years, It may not hold the world record but this has set a precedent for inanimate objects alike Laboj (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC) — Laboj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Having it listed at List of most-liked Instagram posts is sufficient until lasting notability is established. Kaldari (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:RAPID. I checked Google, and news articles are still being published about the egg. These articles cover a lot of different aspects of the egg picture and its online fame (not just the fact that its the most liked Instagram post). This could just be a flash in the pan, but there is also currently evidence to suggest it may have some lasting impact. I think its best to wait a few months to make a determination of the egg's lasting significance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Though this point wasn't mentioned, I think it's worth bringing up that this does not meet BLP1E – "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Yes, this is surely well documented and, as displayed by the name @world_record_egg, they did seek publicly with these actions.

Nomination is also of a current event that has attracted international attention. When the publicity dies down, maybe reconsider then? But for now, this should stay up.

Given the dozens of sources found on Google within minutes of starting a search, this passes GNG.

Seems to me that there is no reason to delete. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th' Corn Gangg

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the topic. -- Flooded with them hundreds 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They actually got a robust concert review ([35]) and were noted for supplying a remix of a Beck song, but otherwise they only existed for a few months and apparently had no official releases of their own. The band is already mentioned as a brief offshoot at The Unicorns and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's a fairly significant piece here from Pitchfork, which is exactly the kind of reliable source that goes a long way to meeting WP:MUSICBIO, but apart from a couple of lines about their set at SXSW 2005 (Pitchfork again) and a short blurb from LA Weekly, I couldn't find much else. Unless some more coverage turns up, I think this probably belongs better as an addendum to The Unicorns for the time being. — sparklism ^hey! 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Pitchfork piece definitely ain't nothing, but it also ain't enough all by itself — the real notability claim here has far less to do with Jamie and Nick actually having done anything noteworthy under this name, and more to do with being a shortlived transitional footnote between two much more notable bands. But it's a bit of an X vs. Y problem as to whether Unicorns or Islands would be the better redirect target — so both articles should probably mention this, with the result that if somebody searches for it they'll both come up in the results anyway, but we shouldn't privilege one band over the other in terms of where this was pointed as a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skeem (2011 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales Of Nazir. SITH (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a little hard finding stuff out there, since it kind of seems like not all of the South African media outlets put their work online, but I did find some coverage. It looks like there was a huge kerfuffle a few years back about someone copying his film. I also found where the film's title track was covered in a book (looks like this was specifically made for the film). I only made brief mention of this in the article since I didn't really want to work on a big soundtrack section at this point in time. I don't think that the award the film received is major enough to really keep on that alone, but the amount of coverage that the film festival and the award win received show that it's something that should give at least partial notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as perWP:HEY as the article has been substantially improved since nomination including content referenced to multiple reliable sources coverage such as National newspapers including a secondary review in the South African Mail and Guardian, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is now sufficient coverage - notability may also be satisfied via the award route. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Partial Consensus that there is sufficient notability for articles to be retained and overwhelming consensus that a mass nomination was unsuitable and that individual nominations are required for articles lacking suitable sourcing - after a more in-depth BEFORE sweep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axe of Vengeance

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

Please note I am also nominating the following articles with this one because they are all non-notable films released in the same country and the articles are authored by the same user:

As with the Ghanian film articles created by this user (for which a separate AfD is open), these films fail WP:NFILM. Some, such as A Hotel Called Memory, have won awards, but all of these awards are minor ones which don't confer notability per WP:NFILM. None of them appear to have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG either. SITH (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, and keep at least A Hotel Called Memory. Regarding the first point, there's no realistic reason to believe that a set of Nigerian films are all going to have the same level of coverage or notability needed to avoid making this a trainwreck of a bundled nomination. And, indeed, I'm fairly certain that at least one of these films easily meets the inclusion threshold. Two of the sources currently cited are articles in The Guardian – not that one, but this one, which is still unquestionably a reliable source. Additional sources are not hard to find. Some of these other listed films have, shall we say, less easily searchable titles, but at a minimum, there's no reason to consider them in a bundled nomination with inadequate prior source surveys. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Squeamish Ossifrage. This same editor nominated the late Ghanaian actor Kwame Owusu-Ansah which I found sources and edited. Terrible nominations! A procedural close and keep is in order until editors have time to go through each individual article and check sources for them to determine notability. Wiki is not going anywhere. The nominator has been told to do WP:BEFORE nominating. I am very concerned about their nominations. Keep and close.Tamsier (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as reliable sources coverage has been identified in the comments above such as significant secondary coverage in national newspapers such as The Guardian (Nigeria). It is also poor practice to bunch nominate films that only have the country of origin as a similarity, these should have been nominated seperately, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Waste of AFD patrollers time. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth per WP:A10. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Gang

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

Other entries on the List of most-liked Instagram posts do not have their own articles. I believe world_record_egg can't really be expanded upon enough to warrant its own article. lovkal (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't everything written there already written on List of most-liked Instagram posts? -JonathanLa (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As of now this is only routine coverage, but it holds the record by well over 13 million likes. Trillfendi (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I already commented on my edit on it that it didn't seem to have encyclopedical value, everything there is already stated on the list article and as stated above, it's unlikely that it could expand enough. --Ce Ele 415 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, this is routine coverage (and frankly, completely trivial). Jmertel23 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for Delete is that another page already exists with the same material. Although I do support the post having its own page; it is the most liked online post EVER, and has generated significant media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs)
Note. Another deletion discussion regarding this same topic is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World record egg.-- Flooded with them hundreds 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add as a fact in the Instagram article. WP:NOTNEWS --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with world record egg. Nixinova T C 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Waite

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

Not Significant and Independent References. WP:MUSICBIO ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. His main claim to fame was participating in the 2014 reality show Grade One, when he was a Grade 1 student. Still a primary school student today. No work in the past 3-4 years. Timmyshin (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Bell

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

Fails WP:NFP. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable director, cast, production company (etc.) Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as has a notable director, cast and crew and has reliable sources coverage in book sourcrs including the encyclopedia referenced in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus keep but someone please work on the references. Tone 21:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Wolman

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

A composer and music teacher. The article is tagged for notability and has no refs. There are a couple of external links which demonstrate he is a composer and teacher. All I could find on google is [36] and little else. Szzuk (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He has an Allmusic bio, as well as two reviews there: [37], [38], and appears to have coverage in Computer Music Journal: [39], [40]. Also other coverage that is not third party but suggest notability: [41], [42], [43]. I am inclined to keep, but would be interested in whether other editors can find more. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No references is an automatic no for me, especially that this article is over 12 years old! Allmusic is not a reliable source. There is no independent, significant coverage. The notability tag is accurate. Both GNG and Composer. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trillfendi: Since when is AllMusic not a reliable source? That's not what Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources states! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references that Michig found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. (And yes, AllMusic is considered reliable). — sparklism ^hey! 09:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any claim that AllMusic is not a reliable source is total nonsense to say the least, sorry- and if an article this old doesn't have references, we at least try to find them and add them. That's what this site is all about. WP:GNG is met per the reviews on AllMusic and coverage in Computer Music Journal, and albums on such labels as Innova Recordings and competition and grant wins show that he might meet WP:MUSICBIO #5 and #9. Also, he being commissioned to compose music for such great artists as Heinz Holliger adds to his significance in the field. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep give the "strong delete" I hope this isn't a pile-on !vote, but notability is clearly established per those above, but most clearly Zingarese. More than enough sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wedogood

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

References fail the criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability as they are based on company announcements or interviews or are from self-published sources with no editorial oversight. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The company has press mentions at trusted independent sources (French newspapers), but it has no book mentions and no press coverage outside France. I've formatted citations in this article. --Gprscrippers (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Press mentions at trusted independent sources" is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. Looking at the citations in the article, lesechos.fr is a promotional profile after the company "received the approval of the competitiveness cluster Finance Innovation" including a quote from the founder and fails WP:ORGIND (no indications of independent analysis/opinion/etc). This reference from entrepreneursdavenir.com is another profile piece and relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotations from the founder and is exactly the type of churnalism that WP:NCORP says is not to be considered for the purposes of establishing notability. The reference from startup-story.fr is essentially a blog and fails WP:RS. The reference from ouest-france.ft is another profile piece based on the company winning an award and relies on information and quotations/interviews from company sources, fails WP:ORGIND. The reference from nantesmetropole.fr is based on the same event and fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons. The next reference from lesechos.fr is entirely based on an interview with the founder describing their business and their processes, fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the reference from ladepeche.fr is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not have the ability to do a thorough evaluation of the French sources, but on their face they appear to be general announcements and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Outside of those, there is nothing out there that could help establish WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that the sources are largely press releases, which aren't great for establishing notability because every company worth its salt will seek them out and easily get them as a source of advertising. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Very weak sourcing, as aleady noted above, with a very strong aroma of promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crumbächer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Beach

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

Completely fails to satisfy WP:NALBUM. While there are a few available reviews, there are no sources that satisfy all three of Sig Cov/Reliable & independent.

Redirect - (to Crumbächer) Along with the band itself, is the only one I felt could potentially be disputed. (The other albums have been redirected for now) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NALBUM. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Crumbächer. Their other albums are already directs, I'm OK with just delete if there is a dispute about the redirect. Szzuk (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sources to band (Crumbächer). No need to delete. Redirect phrase has use. czar 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crumbächer. Unsure of applicability of merging, but I'm not opposed to it. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've copied the allmusic ref along and added it next to thunder beach. I also added the general discography source (not from the TB article). The other TB source just indicates charting (not notable charting, I should add), so I didn't feel it was worth adding. If merging was based on sourcing I don't think there's anything else to add from this article. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Room Candidate

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

Fails WP:NWEB. The only review I can find is this which was published just after the launch, suggesting no lasting coverage. DGG de-prodded it but a source search suggests this isn't the case. I wouldn't be averse to redirecting it to American Museum of the Moving Image. SITH (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be averse to merging it either, retaining all of the information. We should then do similarly for each of their major holdings of this sort. It's an extremely important museum and its collections and publciation deserve detailed treatment--though not to the level of individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of the website in Newspapers.com from 2004, when it was updated 4 years after it was created - eg a Florida paper publishing a story from the NYT [44], the Detroit Free Press [45], The Tampa Tribune [46]. There is also coverage in eg the Los Angeles Times [47], and the NYT published in the St Louis Post-Dispatch [48], of a video exhibition called 'The Living Room Candidate - A History of Presidential Campaigns on Television 1952-1992' presented by the Museum of the Moving Image in 1992, which was the original version from which the website developed (as noted on its About page, "Special thanks to the University of Oklahoma Political Commercial Archive for providing material for the original version of The Living Room Candidate, presented in 1992 at the Museum of the Moving Image.") So there is certainly enough coverage available to improve the article so that it meets WP:NWEB: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." I haven't checked scholarly articles or books yet - there may be more there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Check Google Books - this website is often mentioned among educational sources to explore for politics related issues. I added several citations to the article. --Gprscrippers (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pixton

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

As far as I can tell, does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. A discussion on the talk page from six years ago says that the Morgan Prize qualifies for criterion #2 of WP:ACADEMIC, but the Morgan Prize is a prize for undergraduate research, and criterion #2 of WP:ACADEMIC specifies that "awards and honors for academic student achievements" are not eligible under this category. I also do not think he is notable under the WP:CHESS notability guidelines, as the championships he have won have been junior championships, which I don't think qualify as "national- or continental championships". I don't see any sources that otherwise would qualify him under WP:GNG. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although technically a "national award," the Morgan Prize is certainly important enough to qualify for notability. Also compare Lisa Sauermann or Reid W. Barton. --bender235 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the Clay Research Fellowship and Sloan Research Fellowship are more indicative. Although they are both early-career awards, they clearly show him to be among the top ranks of mathematicians at his level of seniority. And mathematics is a low- and slow-citation field, so his citation counts on Google scholar of 91, 60, 41 (all for papers from 2015 or later) are actually quite impressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I think the in-depth coverage of some of his mathematical work in the Morgan Prize writeup and the in-depth analysis of his game against Benjamin in Benjamin's book (both independent of the subject and reliably published) go a long way towards WP:GNG, although neither fits the more specialized notability guidelines for academics or chess. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy is clearly a top-notch mathematician (IMO, Morgan, Clay, Sloan, Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc), on an upward trajectory. I cannot quite tell whether he presently satisfies all of the Wikipedia notability criteria, but he's certainly a notable mathematician. – Turgidson (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Clearly a bright guy, but I'm having trouble finding any notability standard he currently meets. His awards were for early career mathematicians, his h count is 10 and most of his papers were co-authored (with his name never being the first among them), and I question that the GNG is met. I admit I mentioned the h-count since it seems low for math, but it's another of the many areas I know only a little (or nothing) about. I'm wondering if this is WP:TOOSOON or perhaps WP:IAR. Sandals1 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- comment on a comment: Publishing an 80 pages long paper in Inventiones (in 2018) and having a bunch of papers published in IHES, JAMS, Crelle, G&T, Compositio, etc is in and of itself notable for a research mathematician, at least in my book. As for not being listed as the first author, this is purely a matter of having a last name starting with P: in mathematics, authors are almost always (I'd say, ~99% of the time) listed in alphabetical order, as a matter of established convention. – Turgidson (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this just barely passes the threshold of notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qiao Zhang

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

I can find no sources other than documents associated with the lawsuit mentioned in the article and the Pacific Rim Construction articles cited (which have no byline and appear to be based on media releases) that mention, much less establish any claim for the notability of, the subject. The article's author insists that the subject is "internationally acclaimed" (as one of the PRC articles states) and notable, but at this point neither the article content nor the sources cited indicate why the subject would or should be. Being the subject of litigation is certainly not alone a reason for notability. General Ization ^Talk 05:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, while the creator asserts the subject is "acclaimed", the content of the present article is overwhelmingly negative concerning the subject. It primarily documents a claim that the subject embezzled from his firm, a claim that appears to have been settled under seal and so cannot be readily refuted. An effort at character assassination may be the article's primary purpose for being here. General Ization ^Talk 13:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article is not notable in its own right. At best single event and inherited. I cannot find any appropriate IRS. Possible redirect to Marshall Strabala#Breakup and Lawsuits. Aoziwe (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zhou_Shimiao, but since it is not currently, I will just cut and paste my comment there, too. I think it applies equally to that article.

I think the coverage of this person meets WP:BIO. I understand it is not actual policy, but I think Wikipedia:Notability_(architecture)#Architects can inform things, too. In addition to the sources already in the article, his firm's website (though not a third party reference, to be sure) lists some projects that seem important, though I am no expert.[49] And there is at least one Chinese language source that talks more about his old firm's dissolution and lawsuits. [50] In fact, it was an anonymous editor that kept adding this reference to Marshall Strabala that got me to look into this individual and his firm partner for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Google translation of this source leads me to believe there are alternate ways to transliterate this person's name. And I am sure somebody more capable than me can do more effective native searches in Mandarin. Seeing as he is based in China, and based on the English sourcing available, I would expect there to be more references available in Chinese.

Further, despite General Ization's claim that I assert this architect is "acclaimed," if one read's the article, my talk page post, and edit summaries, one would see that I am just reciting what a source said. I have no idea whether his peers (or anybody else) actually acclaim him or not.

And to briefly address what appear to me to be an ad hominem attack on me alleging I had somehow improper motives for creating the article (of course, the article can have no motive for existing, only the article's first editor for creating it), which the General seems to acknowledge is at odds with his (inaccurate) characterization of my view of whether the architect is acclaimed: if this article is "character assassination," the text of the article indicates I am a terrible character assassin, or at least a straightforward and boring one. But I will assume good faith and assume the General did not mean to disparage me personally.

In sum, from what I have read online, I think this individual (if not the article itself) meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No intent to disparage you personally; my comments were an assessment of the present state of the article, and the fact that 80% of it concerns legal claims against the subject rather than their accomplishments led to my speculation. That the firm's Web site may describe some important projects is irrelevant unless it also clearly shows that the subject was somehow important to development or realization of one or more projects. (As near as I can tell, it doesn't, and he is no longer with the firm.) There are two separate AfDs because they are presumably two separate people, and the discussion of the notability or lack of one shouldn't influence the discussion of the other. General Ization ^Talk 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the firm link I pasted above is his current firm. It looks like he is one of two partners (the other being the subject of the other related article you sent to AfD), so it stands to reason he is involved with some or all of the projects. It looks to me like the page does claim he and his partner were directly involved in those projects. And per N, notability is determined based on the subject, not the state of the article. As for whether to combine the AfD, it is your AfD nomination; I've copied and pasted this comment from the other one. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see some sources about him in Chinese - e.g. [51][52][53], I'm sure there are more. He is linked to the firm in these sources, in particular with the design of the Shanghai Tower. Sources however indicate that Marshall Strabala is the chief architect of the firm, so as simply a partner in the firm, there is some doubt about his individual notability as an architect. Just being involved in a lawsuit is not by itself notable. I'm not really sure what he is known for architecturally outside of his association with Strabala, therefore deletion is a possibility, but I'm leaning towards redirecting it to another article, possibly Marshall Strabala for now. Hzh (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened the refs and they aren't about him directly. They're about projects of which he was part and litigation in which he was involved. Consequently their value in satisfying GNG is much reduced. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. Refs have been added which indicate notability. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Rivera

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

A non notable individual. There are no refs in the article, just a link to his website. The article details a fairly regular life and wp:before isn't returning anything to satisfy gng. Tagged for notability and relatively few edits over the years. Szzuk (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick web search turns up books written about him, for example Fascinación y vértigo : la pintura de Arturo Rivera and El ojo del fulgor : la pintura de Arturo Rivera. WorldCat lists "33 works in 57 publications in 2 languages and 298 library holdings" by him. The Spanish language Wikipedia article on him w:es:Arturo Rivera may be useful in expanding the English article (but it doesn't have references to help). If you're having trouble finding anything about him in a web search, it's probably the language barrier rather than the actual absence of sources. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should keep a WP:BLP with no refs (leaving aside whether those refs satisfy WP:V and WP:N). Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources WP:NEXIST, eg Pensamiento y arte en los 90 [54], Leonard's Price Index of Latin American Art at Auction [55], Handbook of Latin American Studies: Humanities [56], and that's without even looking for articles and reviews in newspapers and journals. WP:BEFORE: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, ... or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the time you took to quote policy you could have added those refs to the article. Szzuk (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have, and I often do during AfDs. However, when they are as easily findable as in this case, anyone could add them - it does not need access to subscription services to find and read these sources and add them as citations, as WP:BEFORE suggests. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty easy to add refs too. (If you believe in them). Szzuk (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, editors are under no obligation to add sources that they find/list at afds, and the above comment is a disservice to editors such as RebeccaGreen, who carry out the research that, given what has been found above, some nominators apparently cant be bothered with. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is a personal attack- see WP:NPA. This matter appears resolved so your comment is not helpful. As a result of this conversation I've explicitly stated I've carried out WP:Before on subsequent AfD's. Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's still work to be done, but I've added some additional citations and links. From the Spanish language research readily available he does appear notable and multiple sources mention his consideration as one of the masters of 20th century Mexican art. The article just needs to be improved by editors who can do Spanish language research. Sdegennaro (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. czar 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davina veronica

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

Appears to be an non notable personality. Unicorn212 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Misplaced AfC submission. — CoolSkittle (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify not currently suitable for mainspace, but AfC template suggests intent to improve --DannyS712 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Needs a WP:HISTMERGE. wumbolo ^^^ 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

People's Party (India)

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

I've declined CSD (nominated under G11 and A7) because to my mind it reaches the CCS bar and is not unduly promotional. I lack the familiarity with Indian political topics to assess its notability and so am sending it to AfD for consideration. GoldenRing (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG. The only source is about the announcement of this party. there is absolute lack of reliable sources discussing the subject or giving significant coverage to it. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another minor political party whose most notable achievement is having existed, which is not enough. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Noble

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

Appears to be a non-notable politician who was elected to a local school board. There is a single HuffPo story and one from what looks like a local paper out there from when he was elected to the school board (referencing his youth and political affiliation), but that's about it. Article has been deleted twice before this. valereee (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a national director of a national organization, seems notable enough and given outsized coverage for his one schoolboard position (normally hardly covered at all in local pages). JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The national organization has 1500 members, I think. valereee (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the NPOL “Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” No general notability qualifications are shown here at all. Trillfendi (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website for the Socialist Party USA states that the subject is a national co-chair. WP:POLOUTCOMES mentions that leaders of national political parties may be kept, "despite their party's lack of electoral success." Using this criteria, the stories about the subject's school board election and article in the Huffington Post and mentions in other stories about the party lead to a WP:GNG pass. The previous XfD discussions occurred before his election as national co-chair. --Enos733 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being national cochair of a small political party is not a free notability pass that automatically entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, sourcing be damned — it can get a person over the bar if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but it does not make him so critically important for us to cover that having to source him properly becomes optional. But the references here are a Blogspot blog, two blurbs tangentially covering stray facts about the party which completely fail to even mention Noble's name at all in the process, and two raw tables of election results — so not even one of the sources actually present in the article is contributing squat toward making him notable at all. And if literally all you can find on the Google for new sourcing is one piece by a Huffington Post blogger and local media coverage of the type that any school board trustee would simply be routinely expected to receive in his local newspaper, then no, that's not enough coverage to make him special. GNG is not just "count up the Google hits and keep anyone for whom n meets or exceeds 2" — it tests for depth and range and context, not just number. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To start, the sourcing includes a profile in NJ.com, and the Huffington Post article. There is also an article profiling the subject as he ran for a freeholder position in 2011. I would admit, if the subject were just a local school board member (and looking solely at the local elected official position in WP:NPOL), this sourcing would not be sufficient. However the subject is not just a school board member, but also a co-chair of a national political party.

In this case, the NJ.com and RedBankGreen profiles (independent of the subject and each other) provide a baseline of information to create a verifiable article about the subject, that is more than "he exists." There is no question that the subject is both an elected school board member and a co-chair of Socialist Party USA. There is additional verifiable information about the subject in reliable sources that could flesh out the article (even if each source by itself would not establish notability), through the form of quotations in mainstream newspapers (such as this article in Philly.com), interviews, or in relationship with other activities of the party (such as this AP article about the formation of a socialist USA chapter in Maine). So, I assert that the depth, range, and context equate to a GNG pass for a person who is "worthy of notice" because of his national position, that coverage of the subject exists over a period of time and in different contexts, and that the profiles in the New Jersey papers provide sufficient depth to write a solid article about the subject in combination with other RS material. --Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To start, I already addressed both the NJ.com and Huffington Post sources in the comment you replied to. NJ.com is the local coverage that every school board trustee everywhere could always show, thus not evidence that he's special, and Huffington Post is a second-tier source at best: acceptable for some additional referencing of stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but not in and of itself a notability clincher if it is the strongest evidence of notability on offer. And both of those are covering him in the context of being elected to a school board, not in the context of the role that could actually get him over the inclusion bar, so they're not building a strong case at all.

So let's move on to the new sources: RedBankGreen is an internet-only community hyperlocal, not a notability-making major media outlet — and being quoted about other subjects in newspaper articles that aren't about him doesn't help to bolster his notability if it hasn't already been nailed down by stronger sources, so none of those other sources are contributing a damn thing toward the question of whether he clears GNG or not. We're looking for coverage about him, not coverage about other things in which he happens to give soundbite.

So no, none of this is enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not necessarily local v non-local sources (per se) for a position where "a genuinely substantial and well-referenced article" would generally be kept, but as you wrote in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Denis_Law_(politician), the question is "whether the sources support enough substance about the mayor to make the article worth bothering to read." My position is that the NJ.com profile (which is not usual coverage of a school board election, especially considering NJ.com is a statewide news organization) in combination with the RedBankGreen article and the glancing coverage in other sources, provides sufficient information to draft a substantial article about the subject (again, whose position as co-chair of a national political party, may normally be kept). While we may disagree whether the profiles do provide sufficient substance, those articles do provide information about the subject's educational background and political platform. Other RS articles cover his election to co-chair of Socialist Party USA. --Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Law is or was a mayor, so he's not a relevant comparison here. The inclusion standard for mayors just requires us to be able to write a genuinely substantive article, and doesn't hinge as strongly on the localness or non-localness of the sources per se, but the inclusion standard for school board trustees is (purposely) much tighter and much more restrictive than that. A mayor can sometimes be considered notable without nationalizing sources, although he would still need more coverage than anybody demonstrated Law to actually have (which is why Law got deleted in the end) — but a person always requires much more nationalized coverage before they can be considered wikinotable for serving on a school board. So of the sources which have been shown so far, the couple that are substantively about Pat Noble are covering him only in the not inherently notable context of being elected to a school board, while the sources that have anything to do with the context that might make him notable are all just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people. So no, none of this is enough: the substantive sources are covering him in a non-notable context where a person requires much more coverage than that to be deemed notable in the first place, and the sources that actually verify his potential notability claim aren't substantive at all. And no, the fact that you can combine a couple of substantive sources in a non-notable context with unsubstantive sources that namecheck his existence in a potentially more notable context, while failing to say anything meaningful about his work in that potentially more notable context, does not add up to grounds for special treatment, either — to deem him notable, what we would require is sources that enabled us to write genuinely substantive and informative content about his work as a political party chair. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no disagreement about the inclusion standards. My point in making the comparison is that WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES appear to indicate that our community would treat mayors and political party chairs similarly. And, fundamentally, a position embedded in the SNGs is that the positions covered within them are notable and of note for a global encyclopedia (and as such, there is an expectation of a certain amount of verifiable coverage of the subject). But, as it may rightfully be pointed out, a political party chair is not covered in WP:NPOL, and I would not disagree. The proper standard in this case is WP:GNG, which does not discriminate about where verifiable information comes from and about what part of a person's life. In this case, most of the RS coverage of the subject does stem from his election to the school board and there is verifiable coverage of his holding of the position and some actions as a national political party chair. There is more primary source material about his work as political party chair, not currently included in the article - but that is not necessarily bad information, just that we cannot base an "entire article on primary sources" WP:PRIMARY. To me, what we have is RS, independent coverage, of the subject that an article can be based upon, lots of confirmation about the position that would generally make the subject notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES) through primary sources and namechecks and quotes in other articles. Is this the greatest amount of sourcing for a subject - most likely not, but it is a) much more (and much more nationalized) than an average school board trustee, and b) his national party co-chair position makes him an individual that readers of this encyclopedia may be interested in (especially his background, which is all verifiable). This all said, I may be advancing a position that may not gain consensus here, and I am ok with that, but I do think we should think about the broader context of the position a person holds, general interest in similar positions, and whether there is sufficient verifiable information to write an article that is more than "they exist." In any case, if the position is not kept, there should be enough value to redirect to Socialist Party USA. --Enos733 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Lack of coverage from secondary RS to establish notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is a lack of coverage to justify notability. Fails criteria one of WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. CookieMonster755 ✉ 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not enough coverage from secondary sources to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elroy Air

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

Fails WP:CORP. One article/source, and while it's behind a paywall, it doesn't look like it's specifically about this startup. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is also about others as listed in Cargo_aircraft#Unmanned_cargo_aircraft, but is still thorough for Elroy. It was openly accessible when created, but I can share it if needed, I subscribe to Aviation Week. Other news: Quartz or The Drive. Could be more apt as an aircraft article if needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Probably WP:TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I see some non-promotional independent sources on Elroy Air, this doesn't appear notable. $4.6M in seed money is remarkably tiny for an autonomous drone delivery enterprise. --Lockley (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Desai

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

There is not even a single ref related to this article. Unicorn212 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem isn't that the article doesn't have references - poor quality articles without references are routinely turned into better articles with sufficient references. But in this case there doesn't appear to be any independent reliable sources available to use as references Gnome de plume (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cannot keep articles on living people without references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Legendary

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

Non-notable music group, fails WP:BAND. Survived a prod in 2011 based on the claim they played on the 2011 Vans Warped Tour however I have been unable to find any RS for this and provided reference does not mention it Greyjoy^talk 09:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only release given in the band's discography is to Bright Lights, an E.P. which was self-released. Vorbee (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't do enough or have sufficient impact to be of encyclopedic interest, even if we could find coverage. They appear to have played one date on the Vans Warped Tour (best source I could find: [57]), but this was apparently as winners of a 'battle of the bands' competition to play in their hometown show, and is not in itself a good reason to keep this.. --Michig (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Handsome

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

hyped or just a hoax. Unicorn212 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unicorn212 replaced my PROD with this nomination. To quote the PROD, "There are regurgitations of 3-4 press releases from the first few months of 2014 announcing that say so-and-so has signed, shooting will take place here and there, and so on, but despite the hype there's no evidence that filming ever began. Per WP:NFF this "future" film should not have a stand alone article. There is no obvious redirect target." --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this unreleased film has no significant secondary reliable sources coverage. If it gets released and has rs coverage such as reviews then it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Martin

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

A lawyer doing his job, voicing opinions on a topic in his field - in this case net neutrality. The vast majority of sources are articles about net neutrality that have one or two sentences of quotes from him (i.e. less than 95% of the articles' contents). There are no tangible articles about the person other than corporate PR. This is insufficient to establish notability. All the personal data seems to have been taken from the profile at his place of work. This is not an independent source. There are also questions about the original conception of this article which indicate PR-cruft. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual does not meet the notability requirements. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. GPL93 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack good coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Loveland

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

Subject does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find hardly any coverage - many event listings, but few reports or reviews. There are 2 short sentences in a 15 para article about a self-esteem workshop for domestic violence survivors that someone else ran; one sentence in a report of a golf clubhouse opening; photos accompanying articles about a medical centre opening and a farmer's market. The only significant coverage I can find is this [58] in The Bartlett Express, "Pageant winner helps girls at Youth Villages". I can't even find coverage of the pageant. She doesn't meet WP:NMODEL (even the winners of Ms. International are only listed on that page, they don't have their own articles) or WP:NMUSIC (her recordings are self-released). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage with just minor mentions in a couple of local newspapers promoting musical appearances. The majority of references in the article are unreliable social media platforms (YouTube, Twitter and Facebook). Fails WP:NMUSIC and does not meet notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as a WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes

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

Delete (as proposer) - Page's content isn't any indicative of the subject's notability. We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here. If merging to a larger related article isn't viable, this article should be deleted. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads entirely like an advertisement for this teenage clown's video of hatred. Fails WP:GNG as sources have no significant coverage on major events the subject has participated, only passing and recentist references. Some random alt-right figure deserves no "documentations" of them here anyway, we're not a platform for hatred. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's a close one. I consider the self-published sources in no way indicative of notability. However, the coverage in Time, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune is independent and reliable. However, I am erring on the side of caution because:

The majority of major media coverage both cited by the article and revealed by my own source searches refers not to Fuentes as an individual but as part of a collective group of far-right youths who attended the Unite the Right rally.
The only major, reliable coverage he's received is in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally and there appears to have been no sustained coverage since. This leads me to believe that he fails BLP1E.
Large portions of the article are supported by self-published or questionable sources.
The article, in its current form, is rather promotional.

Edit: while I wholeheartedly agree with Tsumikiria's sentiments, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that people who spread hatred can, and in some cases, are notable because they have received sustained coverage, such as Richard Spencer. It doesn't mean we have to like what they say.

TL;DR: delete per WP:BLP1E. SITH (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have wrote longer to clarify. I agree with what you said. What I meant was that such random alt right clowns don't deserve a place here. Our responsibility was to document high profile ones so that the public can read about them here. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Don't think he's notable enough. Skirts89 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage in multiple media sources including TIME, MMfA, and the Boston Globe. BLP1E has been overcome due to lasting coverage of his Charlotsville rally participation, youtube channel, and death threats at his college. He's a white supremacist, but we're WP:NOTCENSORED. First two delete !votes are making political judgements, not policy based arguments. Other delete !voters argue over content (eg. "notability not explained in article", "reads as promotional", etc). Tsumikiria's argument that "alt right clowns don't deserve a place here" is not a policy based argument. We cover all notable topics, not just the ones we like. The article needs to be improved; not deleted.--v/r - T P 03:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm not so sure about "clearly"; the three sources you mention all covered Fuentes within the span of one week, so that's not sustained coverage. WP:SUSTAINED clearly states that if "reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event... we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." There's no lasting coverage of him after that, only brief mentions. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage in multiple media sources including TIME, MMfA, and the Boston Globe. Streams to thousands each day and makes millions of impressions on twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.163.116 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note: this is this IP address's only edit, and it copy-pastes the first sentence of the first Keep vote. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and I'm not sure about the WP:SUSTAINED issues--as he's had more recent coverage as well, here and here among others. The fact that he has some despicable views on race doesn't really matter as long as he's notable and such. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: One of those new sources is a local newspaper, and the other is an editorial written about the author's personal experience with Fuentes during his college days. Not what I would call passing WP:GNG level if that's all there is. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment:' None of them are top tier RS, but there's certainly more: here, and here. Admittedly, those are not independent of the subject, but this is. Close call but I think he's past GNG.ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"None of them are top tier RS" - that's precisely the problem with this article. (Your 3rd link literally has 1 sentence on Fuentes in the entire article). The only RS that feature him are from one week in history, and there's only 3 of those (one of those 3 is actually a blog on MMfA, so not even that great). The rest of the mentions are all from very fringe sources. That's why he doesn't meet GnG. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ewen Douglas and StraussInTheHouse. Fails to meet the requirements for significant and sustained coverage of this particular individual. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, asserts notability with reliable sources. Amisom (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment The reliable sources only cover him for one week, years ago, so no, there's no "notability with reliable sources" Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewen Douglas: But I fairly obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. My understanding of WP:N is that the sources in the article as it stands are a legitimate assertion of notability. You're entitled to think that they're not. I disagree. Deal with it. Amisom (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one of us agrees with actual Wikipedia guidelines and the other disagrees with them, then. I would wager the person disagreeing would have the more difficult time "dealing with it." Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Consensus? I'm sure you think you're unquestionably right and that everyone else's view is wrong, biased, incorrect, against policy, foolish and idiotic. But Wikipedia tends to work on the basis of discussions, and two editors can disagree without either of them being 'wrong'. Let me also inform you that I, and I suspect most of the other people commenting here, will be able to cope without further hectoring from you. Allow this AfD to run its course. If the consensus goes in your favour, good for you. If it goes against you, tough. Sniping at people who disagree with you will not help your cause. Amisom (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe pointing out basic errors in stating Wikipedia policies qualifies as "sniping"; however, most of the statements you made above assume a great deal of things, both about me and other editors, so I would advise you to take your own advice about hectoring and sniping. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewen Douglas: I didn't make a "basic error". I expressed my opinion. You might disagree. You might interpret the policy differently. That's fine. Doesn't mean I'm wrong - and I'm far from the only person who seems to have reached my conclusion here.
If you need help understanding the difference between facts (which are right/ wrong and therefore might be erroneous) and opinions (which are neither right or wrong) then there are some resources here that might help you [59] Amisom (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources which are in passing and/or blog-like. Not sufficient for a BLP at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the depth and quality of coverage. Even discounting the IP, we have a majority but not quite a consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All politics aside, I see a number of reliable sources on this article: Boston Globe, Reuters, NYT, Chicago Tribune, Mic, etc etc. Not sure I want to call Vice a reliable source, but that's here too. Seems to pass the minimum requirements for notability at the very least. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we take the WP:BLP1E coverage aside, there is a couple of articles in student newspapers and a single Boston Globe article. Does not pass GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quote "We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here" by Ewen Douglas raised my eyebrow. None of us own Wikipedia. Doesn't matter if Fuentes is a despicable person or a good person, he either meets the WP:BLP standard or he doesn't. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point, Cllgbksr, and perhaps that part should have been left out. I apologize, as I believe this is only my second deletion nomination, so I'm not well-practised at it. For the record, I know there are more white supremacists on Wikipedia who are definitely notable, and I nominated this one solely based on his lack of significant coverage over a long period of time. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have the feeling that opposition to this article is largely coming from a place of dislike for the subject rather than Wikipedia guidelines. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. That's not the case, at least for me. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per SITH's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. if you take away his coverage from his involvement in Charlottesville, his other coverage doesn't meet the standards of WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No barrier to creating a redirect from the properly-cased title. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pain of An Empty Stomach

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

Book lacks all notability, and is part from a long campaign to promote the author on enwiki. Very few sources even mention this book, and then they are only passing mentions. No good sources about the book itself. Fram (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for non-notable book. Such sourcing - paltry - as I can find is already on the page. sources like New Era Live, which appears to be a social media posting or possibly a press release, but it's mere pre-release book promotion.[60]. AllAfrica.com features similar pre-release hype [ https://allafrica.com/stories/201708170295.html]. This just doesn't cut the mustard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book not sufficient enough for a stand alone article Loved150 (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author (Joseph Kalimbwe) as useful search term and lowercase "an" in the title. Expand summary style within parent article. czar 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Israelitism

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

This article, which purports to give a name to a specific current of Palestinian nationalism, is about a specific claim of ethnogenesis for Palestinians, and provides citations to primary source genetic studies and a mixture of primary and secondary sources for linguistic arguments that to varying degrees support the claims of this tendency. However, none of the sources provided actually mention "Palestinian Israelitism", "Palestinian Israelism", or "Native Israelis", nor do they make reference to any specific political movement that is promoting this theory, thus making this article WP:SYNTH at best. I wasn't able to find any mention of these terms in RS online, and an internet search for the Arabic term provided in the lead also returned no results. Thus, while some of this information could be incorporated into Palestinians, Palestinian nationalism or other existing articles that discuss Palestinian identity, I don't see any evidence that there should be a standalone article titled "Palestinian Israelitism". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: as it turns out, the section on genetic studies appears to be a copyright violation of a comment on this blog. I'm unaware of any actual policy on what to do in this situation, but in order to make it easier to evaluate the article, and to avoid accusations of sabotaging the article to make a stronger deletion case, I am going to avoid acting on this until after the AfD runs its course. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete Good Lord, this could be a poster article for WP:OR, Huldra (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides its verifiability problems, the article was created by an editor who doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the theory is notable (though not under this name - AFAICT. This is a movement that seeks to convert Palestinians (per the movement - back) to Judiasm) - e.g. see [61][62][63]. The current page may merit TNT. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The book you cited in your first link is self-published and therefore not a reliable source. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That book is by one of the main proponents (and the third link is the movement) - I didn't not say this was a reliable source nor an indication of notability. The second link ([64]) is to an INDEPTH piece by Haaretz on this (and one can find a few more). Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete. While an article could be constructed on the topic, the current article is filled with WP:OR, is not based on reliable sources, and is essentially an essay. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR essay --Shrike (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails at WP:OP, and of the few sources actually cited, at least the one from Haaretz is turning a speculative statement by someone with no connection to the movement into hard fact. Playlet (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources on this page that are not either non-WP:RS, WP:SYN violations or just WP:OR.--Calthinus (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to be a lot of OR on first exam. Don't have much time to dig into this, though.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete !voters were ignoring WP:GNG as a guideline, making keep arguments stronger. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Watts

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

Subject not sufficiently notable as does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG Lakers321 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. I added more sources to the article, which combined with the existing ones demonstrates satisties GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. << FR 10:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL but WP:GNG supersedes subject-specific notability guidelines and the article cites enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the latter. However, I would be inclined to open a requested move to change from his nickname as it appears that the majority of sources refer to him by his first name, but that's an aside. SITH (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Too soon. High school sports is just not enough. Rmhermen (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmhermen: The essay Too soon applies to cases where significant coverage doesnt exist yet. Two so far have said that GNG is met. Please discuss the sources. Unless this is an WP:IAR !vote? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looks like typical coverage for a highly sought after high school athlete. I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:GNG, which is the only notability standard he might meet.Sandals1 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the notability is in basketball, than the person needs to at least meet the basketball notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong. The broader sports SNG WP:NSPORTS clearly states: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).—Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rocket Watts is shown to be like any other high school athlete that has a specific amount of coverage, that really isn't enough to meet WP:GNG, it's a bit too soon for this article to be created as of now. Lakers321 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakers321 (talk 02:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify your minimum threshold for "specific amount of coverage" required. Otherwise, the concern is that your nomination is really an WP:IDONTLIKEIT for articles on high school athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what this comment means. Watts certainly has more coverage than the vast majority of high school basketball players, most of whom have nothing to even have a notability discussion about. If the issue is that his coverage is "like any other high school athlete that has a specific amount of coverage," well, those few high school players with the specific amount of coverage that Watts has likely do meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, which trumps NSPORTS. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have a stricter standard of notability for high school athletes per WP:NHSPHSATH. However, Watts passes that stricter standard. The coverage includes non-WP:ROUTINE articles specifically about Watts from a variety of independent sources, including ESPN.com, Mlive.com, Detroit Free Press, The Detroit Free Press, and more. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Coverage is there, and it's significant. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Davies

AfDs for this article:

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

Let’s start with the obvious. The article does not cite any sources. I tried looking for any reliable sources but I’ve turned up nothing, which I chalk up to her being a child actress at the very beginning of her career. I looked at the first AfD for this page before coming here and they decided to keep because she meets NACTOR. So now we’re in a situation where we have to decide if career specific notability guidelines (NACTOR) is greater than the need for reliable citations for verification (GNG). As far as I’m concerned, I see this page as a much too soon, regardless. Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is about the broader notability guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) is thataway. Pretty much no one accepts that a single AfD is some binding notability guideline update. (Neither does the nominator, obviously, since they are rejecting a previous AfD.) The subject meets WP:NACTOR#1 with verifiable "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." There are sources available for verification and expansion, including the ones that Lourdes pointed out in the last AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one added them and the article stands empty of any references. Looking at the history of the article, the only references put since the first AfD was IMDb (unreliable therefore removed), FamousBirthdays (unreliable therefore removed), her Instagram account (unreliable therefore removed), and MovieWeb (unreliable therefore removed). If the sources Lourdes suggested had been added, Davies it still wouldn’t expand the article in any way. All that book offered was a trivia tidbit for for IMDb. The lead has a POV issue and is nothing more than a sentence rendition of what’s in the filmography table. Where is her career section? Trillfendi (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why do we have to decide "if career specific notability guidelines (NACTOR) is greater than the need for reliable citations for verification (GNG)"? (Though that is not all of what WP:GNG actually says - it says WP:SIGCOV, which is different to WP:V.) We don't need to decide that because WP:NACTOR specifically does not include any mention of coverage, unlike other career specific guidelines (WP:AUTHOR #3, for example). As for "at the beginning of her career", she's been acting for 6 years, and has just had yet another major role! Please stop wasting our time with nominations of people who clearly meet career specific guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acting for 6 years, 12 years old. Do the math on that. As for “wasting your time”, one could surmise that you’re wasting your time even being here in the first place. What it comes down to is this article has absolutely no references in it at all whether it relates toverification of roles stated here, notability, or anything. It cannot stay that way for as long as it has; and previous references put there were all unreliable. So I proposed deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article has references now, and nominatior seems to have an issue with our notability guidelines, which is far outside the scope of an AFD. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JDDJS: I don’t have an issue with it, I’m just perplexed as to how the article was initially kept with NO references whatsoever, whether to verify roles or identify notability or anything at all. That’s the issue. (Having roles doesn’t automatically meet NACTOR). Trillfendi (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant role in significant film. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, presumably it will be, the article cannot be just a filmography with citation overkill. That’s not how it’s supposed to be. There has to be a career section with references. Trillfendi (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With children we should err on the side of privacy, and neither the roles nor the coverage overcome this issue here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR as now verified by the addition of multiple reliable sources in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's been in more productions than a lot of actors who already have their own articles. Bkatcher (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. McClure

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

Non-notability Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability and no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude and longitude of cities, A-H

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

Also

Indiscriminate list. All city articles already have coordinates and putting a random selection of them in alphabetical order is pointless. Even combined I see no reason to have this relic of a page. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Existing pages List of population centers by latitude and List of population centers by longitude are better than this. Esiymbro (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhhh...why are those separate articles when you can sort by either component? And who decided Eureka, population 8, is a "population center"? These are likewise indiscriminate lists and don't serve a real purpose, especially compared to more comprehensive articles like 10th parallel north or a dang map. Thoughts if I nominated that too, @Esiymbro:? Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are actually useful though, unlike the nominated articles here. A sortable list would still be more convenient than looking up the parallels one by one. That said there is much room for improvement, for example entries such as Eureka should be either removed or marked differently from real cities. Also the two articles can be merged, possibly with List of cities by elevation as well. Esiymbro (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But are they really? Who needs an indiscriminate list of cities like that? I'm not sure what this informs the reader of. Yeah, the parallels aren't good for looking at lots of places at, but I'm not sure what purpose these serve. Anyway I don't have to AFD them here but I'll do a merge. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this a relic, created back when you couldn't sort table headers? There was a point to this in 2004 as this is a table you would have seen in a print encyclopedia or gazetteer years ago. Trying to figure out if it still applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this was made back in 2004 and never actually brought to any modern wiki standards. I was not aware of the two articles that Esiymbro pointed out; they are in much better condition with the same general content but I don't see their inclusion criteria or encyclopedic purpose either. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Clearly a case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is a 'no brainer', IMHO... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsfinlayson (talk • contribs)
- That's what I thought with my prod that User:DGG turned down... Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I have no objection, but I thoughtthe community should seeit. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is goin' nowhere, dude. I've also nominated List of population centers by coordinates (i.e. List of population centers by latitude and List of population centers by longitude). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Wikipedia is not a data warehouse, especially not indiscriminate lists like this. Suggest the original author share this over at https://data.world which would welcome something like this and turn it into something a bit more useful.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Justice

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all but one of the references are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles Association of Court Reporters, TV Justice and Stop Censorship About War Crimes ‎ . Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Radio Justice project ended in 2017 according to BIRN web pages. I would have said merge and redirect to Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, but that is a mere redirect to another of the network's projects, an online publication called Balkan Insight, also heavy on the promotional intent, that article also largely the product of a couple of single purpose accounts in 2008. As to Radio Justice, no sign of notability, and no future. --Lockley (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Court Reporters

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all the references except one are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles TV Justice, Stop Censorship About War Crimes and Radio Justice . Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Balkan Insight. Lack of external sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Balkan Insight. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TV Justice

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all the references except one are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles Association of Court Reporters, Stop Censorship About War Crimes and Radio Justice . Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for lack of notability and per WP:TNT. Not independently notable of Balkan Insight; spamming across multiple articles is not appropriate. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, which should be created to summarise information from this article and from Balkan Insight which currently reads like a promo. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by RHaworth - the article was deleted by RHaworth (log) per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6-inch gun M1917

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

I messed up creating this article. The source I used misidentified the gun as being built in the USA and based on the BL 6-inch Mk.VIII naval gun when it's actually a variant of the BL 6-inch Mk.XIX gun. I should have suspected as much when I couldn't find any other references to it. A redirect to the Brazilian section and expansion of that section in the Mk.XIX article would be more appropriate. Snowdawg (talk 22:02, 31 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain, Peter (1975). Heavy artillery. Gander, Terry,. New York: Arco. p. 43. ISBN 0668038985. OCLC 2143869. Snowdawg (talk 23:56, 31 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

It may interest you that Glen Williford's 2016 book on US mobile artillery has a decent section on this gun, but does leave the reader guessing as to where it was made. This is a great source for anything US-made or used 1875–1953. RobDuch (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Williford, Glen (2016). American Breechloading Mobile Artillery, 1875-1953. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978 0 7643 5049 8.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Interesting, looks like a 1930s 7.5 Mk III barrel on a Vickers field mount. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Only one ref says the US type is real, it can be an interesting mention on the main page. They seem to know what they are on about, give them what they want.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I second that, just do it yourself. Snowdawg. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Redirect per above. Snowdawg as you created the article you can request its speedy deletion per G7 and then recreate it as a redirect. Or just blank the page and redirect it. SITH (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially keep If they had a sufficiently different service history, then I'd have no objection to keep two separate articles. Otherwise merge and redirect would be fine – it ought to stay as a distinct section in the target article though, clearly they were distinct enough for that.

Mostly though, I don't think anyone would object to whatever you want to do with it (even closing this, making the changes yourself and deleting (if absolutely necessary) with {{db-user}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Industries et Agro-Ressources

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

References fail the criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability, just run-of-the-mill company notices. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm reluctant to delete anarticle abouta Frenchinstitution that theFrench WP considers notable enough to cover, but, just as the nom says, it does not meet our standards. There's nothing addition in the rench version tohelp. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The contested subject here does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. We find only advertorials, listings in catalogues, or corporate sites. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nurali Aliyev

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion on the grounds that it consists almost entirely of promotional content. I spent some time looking at it and trying to assess what needed to be removed, and came to the conclusion that it's unsalvageable. However, rather than speedy, I'm looking for other opinions. Deb (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTRESUME Trillfendi (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: it is indeed unsalvageable, to the point that I think it qualifies for G11's unambiguous promotion which would require an entire rewrite clause. SITH (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is definitely written much more like a résumé than like a proper encyclopedia article, and being deputy mayor of a city is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL. So even if he actually had a much more convincing notability claim than this is showing, an article about him would still have to be rewritten from scratch and referenced much better than this. (Plus if he's Kazakh, then why does he have articles on en and ru but not on kk?) Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a deputy mayor. --Enos733 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many problems with this article, which have all been noted above (though I'm not surprised he's not on the Kazakh wikipedia.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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