Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 June >

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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiam Wanesse

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

The article makes the claim that the subject debuted in a friendly match between New Caledonia and Vanuatu, which technically meets WP:NFOOTY. However, the lone provided source, [1], does not mention any such game. Searching online, I was able to find some brief mentions of Wanese scoring own-goals in U17 games, but nothing that would help meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added his NFT profile which supports his international debut and a further cap this year. Kosack (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL with several international appearances. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep joj, not a lot of reliable sources out there due to the level of coverage in the area, but has played in several internationals: [2] SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:NFOOTY. Coverage is poor, but the notability bar is not set very high for football. Papaursa (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. SSSB (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think we have consensus that this article needs work but should be kept. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:05, 13 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Gristak

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

Ineligible for PROD, was PROD'd in 2011 without a rationale.

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACTOR (roles are all extremely minor). Sources linked in article are mostly op-eds by the subject, so aren't indications of notability. The ones that aren't are hyper-local and fail WP:AUD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't have much to add to the nom other than that this was the most notable source I could find about Gristak (also known as Adler). The entirety of prose is a two-sentence lead, then a bunch of 'Professional activities' completely devoid of any context. I'm legitimately on the fence about changing this to Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Comment: Reeks of COI. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability in cited sources. Couldn't find anything better. ~Kvng (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see much of a claim of significance, the acting roles are minor and worldcat has no entry for her as an author, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless someone can do a WP:HEY and add more content to justify notability, there isn't enough here at present. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 11 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Optrint

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

PROD ineligible because it was PROD'd without rationale and subsequently de-PROD'd, May last year (my bad for missing that).

Appears to be a neologism, based on the scarcity of google hits for both "Optronic Intelligence" and "OPTRINT". Certainly not enough sources to maintain its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding unreferenced stub page. Searches find a bullet point mention among several surveillance technologies in this web page (in German) but I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage of either the OPTRINT abbreviation or Optronic Intelligence term which would be needed to confirm that there is a WP:GNG topic. Optronics is itself a longstanding redirect so not a suitable redirect target. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 7 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Jude

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

Promotional article about an artiste that somehow slipped through review. No WP:RS, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO.

At this point the page is filled with soundcloud links and facebook links which are not reliable. If notability is established i will be glad to retract nomination. Lapablo (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a launch page for a musical career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks the coverage in independent sources needed to establish notability. Peacock (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Organizations of the Dune universe. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentat

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no WP:RS which can WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subjet of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertions of the nomination seem to be false. In any case, there are sensible alternatives to deletion and there's a big new Dune movie out next year so now is not a good time to start decimating our extensive coverage of this sprawling fictional universe. It's interesting to discover that Mantis (Marvel Comics) is now described as a mentat and I notice that Josh Brolin will be appearing in that movie... "A process cannot be understood by stopping it." Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe - Agree that the article currently fails WP:GNG, but this seems a viable place to hold the essential information. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Organizations of the Dune universe. The sources, outside of the various pieces of Dune media themselves, only really discuss the group in terms of plot summary, with not enough real discussion to really expand this article to anything beyond mountains of WP:PLOT. However, there is a pretty suitable target to merge (preferably much more succinctly) the information on the group to. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I'm going to look for more sources to bolster notability etc., and I'm happy to be the one that actually executes the merge of abridged content into the list.— TAnthony^Talk 16:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above discussion. Thank you to TAnthony for agreeing to do the merge if that is the final outcome. It is far too early to tell if the upcoming movie will increase coverage on this particular topic. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article has a lot of useful information and should not be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Pos

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -I attempted to explain why but it did not post. I removed the deletion because deleting the post due to the league not being fully professional is flawed because there is no distinction between professional and semi-professional leagues in Switzerland. Moreover, it is the second division in Switzerland and the player has turned out for the United States Under-23 National team. Rbradeyb1 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:44, 7 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Kumar Jayakumar

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The article has a mountain of sources, but all of them are either listings of conferences that Jayakumar presented at, interviews with trivial coverage, or citations used to back up claims unrelated to the subject's notability. I was unable to find anything better online. A Scholar search finds Jayakumar to have an h-index of 2 despite a ten year career, which for computer science is far short of WP:NACADEMIC. I briefly nominated this article for CSD G5, but withdrew that as the block appears to have been unrelated to article submissions and the article creator appears to be intent on taking the standard offer in good faith, so it seemed better to go through the standard deletion process for this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:GNG, lacking coverage on reliable sources. Shringhringshring^📞 15:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale per request on my talk page: In my view, the "keep" side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested. However, the "keep" opinions did not adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages. One might, therefore, based on this AfD, create a prose article about the topic of long marriages, but not a list of "longest" marriages. I'm not sure about a "list of long marriages"; this might require another AfD. Sandstein 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with the longest marriages

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

WP:SYNTHESIS list of WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Most sources are occasional reports of long marriages by local press. No apparent source to satisfy WP:LISTN as a group. — JFG ^talk 09:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JFG ^talk 09:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator does not accurately describe the content/subject; there are a large number of sources cited that expressly claim that a particular marriage is a record or the longest, not merely "long". The nominator also asserts "most sources" are of a certain character, without saying what the remainder are (implying they are not of that character). postdlf (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination fails to address the result of the previous nomination which was "keep". It is therefore disruptive per WP:DELAFD. Such repeat nominations, made without the due diligence of WP:BEFORE, are vexatious because they waste the time of editors on futile argument. In this case, I just prepared a detailed !vote but my browser crashed and now I've got to do it all again. The third time is the charm, eh? To make sure, let's raze the arguments of the nomination.

Juxtaposition is not synthesis. Sorting such a list into numerical order is simple arithmetic and, per WP:CALC, that's not OR.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a vague wave to WP:IDL which is an argument to avoid. The reality is surely that the list is highly discriminating as it has a tight focus on marriages of remarkable length.
The page has 145 sources and these include plenty of mainstream, respectable media such as the BBC and The Guardian. They generally indicate that the case is a record and so they are implicitly commenting on long marriages in a collective way. The sources include Guinness World Records and so the records are reasonably authoritative.
There are plenty of other sources out there such as entire books which collect the wisdom of long-married couples or analyze the demographics. Examples include: Secrets of Great Marriages; Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces; 30 Lessons for Loving; Marriage Statistics Analysis. So the topic passes WP:LISTN.

Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD happened in 2016; it is perfectly legitimate to conduct a new discussion after three years. WP:Consensus can change. — JFG ^talk 13:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination presents no evidence that consensus has changed. The readership for the page is steady and substantial. The records of this sort are still being maintained by organisations like Guinness. Instead, the nomination seems to be a drive-by, made in about 2 minutes without any preliminary discussion or due diligence per WP:BEFORE. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination presents no evidence that consensus has changed. This kind of comment is completely unacceptable, and I am frankly shocked that it has gone without comment for almost four days. The point of nominating is to see if consensus has changed, so of course there is no obligation to present evidence in advance that it already had. These kind of comments have been coming far too frequently from the above user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic since news media around the world covers it. 145 references in the article show the topic gets plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dream Focus You are comparing apples and oranges here. Read WP:LISTN and then think about the fact that these media articles essentially only talk about specific local cases, not large groups of married couples ranked by length of marriage, which is what is being done on Wikipedia. Also review WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also found in Guinness World Records. The 2009 edition on page 107 the Oldest Bride is listed. Dream Focus 14:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand that any type of coverage, be it local, national or international of long-lasting marriages is useless in justifying this LIST article because none of these sources LIST groups of people in this manor. What about that can't you understand? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...none of these sources LIST groups of people in this manor [sic]..." There's no such requirement that we source a list to other lists. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is just a WP:SYNTH of various news reports about random cases of long-lasting marriages, but WP:RS don't group people in this format, so there is no justification that we should do so here on Wikipedia. That some media coverage exists for long-married couples is pure WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated the list for deletion in 2016, and when it was clear there wasn't support to delete, I worked on improving the list instead. I still believe this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia is NOT a record book. There's still no clear criteria for inclusion and some of the included entries are very dubious, e.g. "Likely 2nd-longest married U.S. couple". The sources are mostly local human interest reports (many of which link back to a campaign by a religious group, Worldwide Marriage Encounter) and there's little evidence that collecting long marriages is a notable topic. The sources identified by Andrew Davidson do NOT support inclusion. Guinness is a record book (see WP:NOT), and the other publications discuss all marriages, not just a handful of outliers. Pburka (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "people with the longest marriages" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Speirs, Doug (2017-11-25). "Love that lasts: Here's to couples with decades of wedded bliss". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
"Record mondial: Ei sunt cei mai bătrâni miri din lume! Momentul în care au spus "da" este foarte emoţionant" [World Record: They are the oldest brides in the world! The moment they said "yes" is very moving] (in Italian). Antena 1. 2015-06-23. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
Bruce, David (2009-07-29). "75 years of marriage marked". Otago Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
"Britain's longest-married living couple". China Daily. 2006-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
Biemer, John (2005-05-26). "With love, longevity, couples can reach 75th". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
Skropanic, Jessica (2018-07-05). "'I met her and that was it': Redding couple celebrates 80 years of wedded bliss". Redding Record Searchlight. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
Chavers, Penny (2019-02-16). "Breaking the Record for Longest Lasting Marriages". History Daily. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
Curry, Susie (1997-08-20). "People: Marriage that has lasted for 75 years". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
"Staying power". The Daily Telegraph. 2006-05-31. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.

Sources with quotes

Speirs, Doug (2017-11-25). "Love that lasts: Here's to couples with decades of wedded bliss". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
Seventy years is nothing to sneeze at, but the Queen and Philip are still a few years shy of the remarkable couples on today’s awe-inspiring list of Five of the Longest Marriages in History:
5) The happy couple: Bill and Bertie Nickerson
Their time together: 80 years

4) The happy couple: John and Ann Betar
Their time together: 85 years

3) The happy couple: Philipose and Sosamma Thomas
Their time together: 88 years, two days

2) The happy couple: Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher
Their time together: 86 years, 290 days

1) The happy couple: Karam and Kartari Chand
Their time together: 90 years, 291 days
"Record mondial: Ei sunt cei mai bătrâni miri din lume! Momentul în care au spus "da" este foarte emoţionant" [World Record: They are the oldest brides in the world! The moment they said "yes" is very moving] (in Italian). Antena 1. 2015-06-23. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
From Google Translate:
Have you ever wondered how long a marriage can last? Well, here's the top of the longest marriages in the world:
91 years and 12 days - the absolute world record was owned by Daniel and Susan Bakeman, a couple in the United States.
89 years and 187 days - Karam and Kartari Chand, from the UK.
88 years and 2 days - K. Philipose and Sosamma Thomas, India.
86 years and 290 days - Herbert and Zelmyra Fishe, from the United States.
Bruce, David (2009-07-29). "75 years of marriage marked". Otago Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
Alfie and Win Gaze may have set a record - but they do not know for sure. Today, at Totara Lodge, the Oamaru couple will celebrate their 75th wedding anniversary.
That could make them New Zealand's longest-married couple, just a year short of what is believed to have been New Zealand's longest marriage at 76 years.
The article also notes:
Long marriages around the world
Other long marriages of note:

- 86 years, 4 months Philipose and Sosamma Thomas, India, married 1919.

- 81 years, 260 days Thomas and Elizabeth Morgan, South Wales, married 1710.

- 85 years Liu Yung-Yang and Yang Wan, Taiwan, married 1917.

- 84 years Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, United States, married 1909.

- 81 years Frank and Anita Milford, England, married 1928

- 76 years Mr and Mrs D. S. Prince, Wanganui, married 1883.
"Britain's longest-married living couple". China Daily. 2006-06-02. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
Lifetime lovers Frank and Anita Milford have reportedly become Britain's longest-married living couple after celebrating their 78th wedding anniversary.
...
With their relationship as strong as ever, the couple hope to beat the record for Britain's longest-ever marriage of 80 years, set by Percy and Florence Arrowsmith. Percy Arrowsmith died last year.
...
The world's longest marriage on record is 86 years, set by two couples -- Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Narima in India and were married in 1853 and US couple Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber, who tied the knot in 1743.
Biemer, John (2005-05-26). "With love, longevity, couples can reach 75th". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
Longest recorded marriages

79 years
Living couple verified as of May 19, 2005
Percy George Arrowsmith (born, March 13, 1900) married Mary Dallimore (born Oct. 31, 1904) on June 1, 1925. Both are from U.K.

86 years
Cousins Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman (born Sept. 3, 1848) and Lady Nariman, who were age 5 when their marriage took place, were married from 1853 to 1940. Both were from India.

86 years
Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber (born 1725), were recorded as marrying in 1743, at age 18. They were married until the death of Lazarus, 86 years later in June 1829. Both were from the U.S.
The article also says that Joseph Dsida and Eva Brandt were married for nearly 75 years. The article also notes that Richard and Mary Pemberton were married for 75 years and that David and Molly Northwood were married for at least 75 years.
Skropanic, Jessica (2018-07-05). "'I met her and that was it': Redding couple celebrates 80 years of wedded bliss". Redding Record Searchlight. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
Few could pull off an 80-year love affair, but Redding couple Del and Margaret Wood did it.
...
The longest marriage on record, that of Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, ended in 2011 after 86 years and 290 days, according to Rachel Gluck of Guinness World Records North America.
However, the Yorkshire Post reported an 89th anniversary in 2014, that of Karam and Kartari Chand of Bradford, England. In 2016, John and Ann Betar of Connecticut celebrated their 83rd anniversary, and news outlets dubbed the 80-year marriage of Carlsbad couple Maury and Helen Goosenberg the longest marriage in California.
Chavers, Penny (2019-02-16). "Breaking the Record for Longest Lasting Marriages". History Daily. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher broke the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008 for maintaining their marriage for, at that time, 84 years which continued for another three years until his death.
...
[Karam and Kartari Chand] This amazing couple has been married even longer than the Fishers who broke the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008. Mr. and Mrs. Chand were allegedly married for 90 years – almost a century.
...
[John and Ann Betar] At the time of John’s passing in 2017, they had been married for 85 years.
...
[Helen and Maurice Kaye] After being married for 84 years, Maurice passed away at the age of 106.
Curry, Susie (1997-08-20). "People: Marriage that has lasted for 75 years". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
A retired steelworker and his wife - thought to be longest-married couple in the country - celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary yesterday.
Ninety-nine-year-old Tom Blacker and his wife Rene, 97, of Thrybergh, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, marked the occasion with a party for their family, which spans five generations.
...
The couple (pictured above) are believed to be Britain's oldest married couple, and their celebration yesterday brings them within seven years of the record for a UK marriage held by James and Sarah Ann Burgess of Bermondsey, south London, who were married for 82 years. Mrs Burgess died in 1965 aged 100.
The longest marriage on record lasted 86 years until 1940, between Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Nariman of Bombay, India. They were married at the age of five.
"Staying power". The Daily Telegraph. 2006-05-31. Archived from the original on 2019-06-02. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
The article notes:
The longest recorded marriages by the Guinness Book of World Records are for two couples wed for 86 years. Cousins Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman and Lady Narima, who lived in India, were married from 1853 to 1940 after getting married aged five. American couple Lazarus Rowe and Molly Webber married in 1743, aged 18.
The record for the longest marriage for a current living couple is John Rocchio and his wife, Emelia. They were married on Feb 10, 1923, at Providence, Rhode Island, USA, and had their 83rd anniversary on Feb 10, 2006.
The article also discusses the Arrowsmiths who were married for 80 years.

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

Cunard (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, although I wouldn't be surprised if some of them copied their information from Wikipedia, especially the most recent ones. We are failing an authoritative or scientific source tracking the longest marriages. — JFG ^talk 07:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, citogenesis is very real. I saw it in action recently: a mistranslation appeared on the website of the prime minister of Japan, and a large number of supposedly reliable sources, including the BBC, took that information at face value and printed it; I came onto the Wikipedia article on the relevant topic and clarified the relevant information, and suddenly no less than the White House was avoiding the mistranslation. And the BBC, which posted their own mistranslation of a different term in a related context, suddenly corrected itself within a couple of hours of me adding the correct translation to Wikipedia. Just pointing this out in advance since every time I've seen citogenesis raised in one of these discussions, people fire back with "No! These are reliable sources and there's no way they took their information from Wikipedia!" -- if the BBC are checking Wikipedia, then we cannot assume that the Otago Daily Times are not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. Maybe you'd like to add your anecdote to Circular reporting#Examples involving Wikipedia. Personally, I've seen some of the most egregious examples of citogenesis in the Whataboutism article. (But this is a whataboutist remark, undue here.) — JFG ^talk 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are against any reliable sources ever covering it. I saved the proof privately in case I ever want to pull it up or brag about it. The ironic thing is that in that case the citogenesis was actually a good thing: the external "reliable sources" made an error, I corrected them, indirectly, on-wiki, and they later corrected themselves without comment, with the end result being that the incorrect information was expunged. Tragically, the same is not true for Japanese English-language newspapers such as The Japan Times, which will always prioritize providing "natural English prose" to their target readership -- Japanese students of English -- over factual accuracy: they have repeated the same error dozens of times over, know it is in error, and continue to repeat it whenever the subject comes up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, at roughly the same time as I wrote the above the International Policy Digest published this article that clearly consulted Wikipedia: Japan’s oldest poetry anthology and variants thereof have been ubiquitous for months now (actually it was something of a pet topic of mine long before it became a "cool" topic[3][4][5]), so their saying one of Japan’s oldest collections of poetry really makes it look like they checked Wikipedia, and they were right to do so, since relying on sources like [manhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48029890 the BBC] would have resulted in them making a similar error. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is GNG - covered by major news outlets and regularly reported. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 23:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "reliable sources" for these entries appear to contradict each other left, right, and center. Yeah, we can presume that any source that doesn't explicitly say "the world's longest" (as opposed to, say, "our country or city's longest") doesn't actually mean that, but what exactly are we supposed to do in such circumstances? A spot-check indicated that such problematic cases account for the vast majority of entries in the list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another daft list that will be a pain to maintain.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is indeed a pretty large original research issue inherent in this. It's a fascinating subject, to be sure, but per the nominator and Hijiri88 the sources present here basically require us to make all kinds of inferences about what "the longest marriage" is the longest in the world or a given area. The secondary sources aren't there to collate all this, so it's not feasible for a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any authoritative sources, this is mostly OR/SYNTH and indeed as Slatersteven says, a "daft list that will be a pain to maintain". --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to fail WP:OR/WP:SYNTH pretty clearly. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the page to address original research concern:
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages, David in DC (talk · contribs) made a strong argument for renaming List of people with the longest marriages to List of people with long marriages:
The title of this list is extremely misleading. This is not a list of people with the longest marriages. Far too many people with long marriages are left out for that title to be accurate or fair to the unindoctrinated reader. Given the list's bias against people from the majority of nations on earth with inadequate records on this subject, this list page would be much more fairly titled "List of people with long marriages."
A rename of the page would address the original research concern raised by The Blade of the Northern Lights: "the sources present here basically require us to make all kinds of inferences about what 'the longest marriage' is the longest in the world or a given area". Once the page is renamed, there will be no need to make an inference about what is "the longest marriage". The inclusion criteria of the list would be "people who reliable sources say had a long marriage". To further refine the list's selection criteria, the list could be restricted to people married for at least 80 years.
Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria: "people married for at least 80 years who reliable sources say had a long marriage". To address the "no original research" concerns, the only action needed would be a rename of the list.
Regarding maintenance of the page:
Slatersteven wrote, "another daft list that will be a pain to maintain". Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Out of date and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, a page's being "a pain to maintain" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The list currently says in the table "Length of marriage (at date of last report or death)". This means that the list always will be accurate (it will not say a marriage is longer than it really was) though it may be out of date (which is fine per the editing policy). Many of the entries on the list cite an obituary, so those entries would not need to be updated.
No circular reporting found
I did not find circular reporting in the sources I posted. The AfD participants here have not pointed out circular reporting in the sources I posted.
The AfD close for List of unusual deaths:
Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3:
The result was keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the "want" for the information in perspective.
To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article "crap", and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter.
I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria.
Just as "list of unusual deaths" is not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual", so is "list of people will long marriages" not original research "as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the marriages long".
Cunard (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What defines a long marriage?Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - The topic is encyclopedic, and the pageview stats show that there's interest in the page, but, absent any definitive source saying "x has the longest marriage", I don't think the list should be kept. Rename per Cunard. His rationale satisfies my concerns about this list being presented as definitive. There are plenty of sources on this subject out there, and a rename brings the list in line with the sources. schetm (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as shown above, this list suffers from sourcing concerns as well as problems with original research and synthesis. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reply to Slatersteven's question about "What defines a long marriage?": For this list, "a long marriage" is defined as "a marriage that a reliable source has called a long marriage". This is the same definition as that for list of unusual deaths, where "an unusual death" is defined as "a death that a reliable source has called unusual". This way, Wikipedia editors will not need to engage in original research in trying to come up with their own definitions for when a marriage is "a long marriage" or when a death is "an unusual death".

The lead of List of unusual deaths and the proposed lead of List of people with long marriages

The lead of List of unusual deaths says:

This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word unusual as "not habitually or commonly occurring or done" and "remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others".

The lead contains a hidden comment that says "Deaths that are unusual but that are not associated with reliable sources that say the death is unusual will be removed."

We can model the lead of List of people with long marriages after the lead of List of unusual deaths. The lead of List of people with long marriages can say:

This is a list of people with long marriages. This list includes only people who have been married for a significant period of time, as noted by reliable sources. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word long as "lasting or taking a great amount of time".

The lead could contain a hidden comment that says "Marriages that are long but that are not associated with reliable sources that say the marriage is long will be removed."

Since each entry in the list would need to be called "a long marriage" by a reliable source, there is no original research.

Since each entry in the list would stand on its own, there is no synthesis.

In reply to Schetm: Thank you for reconsidering your "delete" position and explaining why a rename to "list of people with long marriages" resolves your "concerns about this list being presented as definitive" when it is called "list of people with the longest marriages".

Cunard (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that List of unusual deaths requires that the death be noted as unusual by multiple sources. If this list is kept, its inclusion criteria should be similarly tightened. Pburka (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments have been presented for why each entry in list of people with long marriages should be sourced to multiple sources instead of at least one source, so I will reserve judgment on whether that should be required. Only a handful of entries on this list are not sourced to more than one source.

Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is pretty obviously a salient/often-covered topic of apparently great interest to the public; sources abound. Renaming to slightly change focus ("List of longest marriages"?; "Celebrated long marriages"?) is possible but not for AFD. Complaints like "as shown above, this list suffers from sourcing concerns as well as problems with original research and synthesis" are just matters to be addressed by normal editting, if they have not been already fully addressed by Cunard's informed replies. --Doncram (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Smells like WP:LISTCRUFT. This is trivia, pure and simple. Creating list pages when there isn't a related article should not be done lightly. Someone commented that the lack of maintainability isn't an valid argument but a list with a volatile membership requiring disproportionate effort to keep up to date is cruft. That there is no related article reinforces the non-encyclopedic nature of the list.

There is no mechanism to remove or manage entries from the list as newspapers will not update such articles with the report of a breakup or passing. Verifiability is also reduced as there is zero consistency in reporting this in the first place.

The list fails WP:LISTV#INC as due to vague inclusion criteria. Indeed, the proposals for criteria are being deliberately phrased so as to avoid verifiability (and attempt escape from deletion).

This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there is no meaningful context. Well, no context at all actually. This is amplified (and also made obvious) by the lack of meaningful inclusion criteria.

Instead, add a section on the marriage page (similar to 'Long-lived individuals' on 'Longevity') and include the most significant couples. ogenstein (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria, as stated in the article, are "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length." There's no need for removal in the manner in which you describe, as the marriage has already reached a certain length. schetm (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough although eventually the list will get too long. But that does not address any of the other concerns, and the concept of 'record' remains false. ogenstein (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Creating list pages when there isn't a related article should not be done lightly", I agree. List articles should be created only when they pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists. The "people with long marriages" list clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists based on the sources I provided.
Regarding "The list fails WP:LISTV#INC as due to vague inclusion criteria", there is a clear inclusion criteria: "A marriage is included on the list if a reliable source has called it a long marriage." I disagree that "the proposals for criteria are being deliberately phrased so as to avoid verifiability". The proposed criteria by requiring verification of a marriage to be "a long marriage" is worded to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
Regarding "This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there is no meaningful context", there is no requirement for lists to provide more context beyond defining what the inclusion criteria is.
Regarding "a list with a volatile membership requiring disproportionate effort to keep up to date is cruft", Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists notes, "Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template." As supported by the policy Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, the consensus is that dynamic lists that "may require constant updates to remain current" are permissible. schetm correctly explains that removals are not needed since "the marriage has already reached a certain length". Furthermore, the list does not need to be updated to remain accurate since the length of the marriage is defined in the list as "at date of last report or death".
Regarding "eventually the list will get too long", the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) notes, "Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages (alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically) to adhere to the Wikipedia guideline on article size." The list currently has 52 entries. If and when the list becomes too long, it can be split into multiple pages.
Cunard (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what you're saying is that it's not an escape attempt because you've already escaped? This is sleight of hand. In the commentary both above and below, even page supporters show concern or confusion over 'longest' versus 'long'. The sources fail when it remains the former, so it was proposed to change the page name and criteria. This is evasion. However, after changing to the latter, the subject becomes trivia.

Per WP:SAL, a list is an article and is subject to the same requirements as one, and an article requires context (see also WP:IINFO). Again, evasion.

Separately, the reason this is not a standard article is because it is obviously insuffient to be one. None of the entries are notable and so the list also fails WP:CSC which stipulates that when the subject is non-notable living people, a stand-alone list is inappropriate. I'll repeat my earlier suggestion — put the most interesting entries on the Marriage page in their own section. ogenstein (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could see some objections being raised on the marriage talk page for this solution. If consensus arrives for a merge of the sort you propose, I think further discussion at Talk:Marriage should take place before it is implemented. schetm (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify as 'controversial'? It is not on the list of controversial topics and it does not broach any of the marriage-related items on that list (and shouldn't for decades). But as it doesn't hurt to raise it there (I hope), I have raised the question on that talk page. ogenstein (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "controversial issues" tag on Talk:Marriage, which is why a discussion should take place there before a merge. Thank you for starting the discussion. schetm (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was simple enough to do. I just wanted to first look into any procedural docs (which also suggest beginning a discussion there) as well as review the controversial issues list. So, good idea. ogenstein (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When my paternal grandparents celebrated their golden wedding anniversary, two different and well-regarded newspapers had an article of several paragraphs (including a photo) of them, commenting on their "long marriage". Is that the kind of "long marriages" that we want to make a list about? --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the existing inclusion guideline from this article, "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length" are to be included. So, did the newspapers in question say that your grandparents had the longest marriage on record? If so, then send me some links, and I'll add them to the list! If not, then, no, that is not the type of marriage we want to make a list about. schetm (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the proposed criteria above: "A marriage is included on the list if a reliable source has called it a long marriage." --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above, "The inclusion criteria of the list would be 'people who reliable sources say had a long marriage'. To further refine the list's selection criteria, the list could be restricted to people married for at least 80 years. Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria: 'people married for at least 80 years who reliable sources say had a long marriage'."

A golden wedding anniversary marks 50 years of marriage. Whether your paternal grandparents are included on the list depends on which inclusion criteria there is a consensus for. If there is a consensus for the less restrictive inclusion criteria, your grandparents would be included. If there is a consensus for the more restrictive inclusion criteria, your grandparents would not be included.

Cunard (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria should not be so loose as to entertain the possibility of golden wedding anniversaries being included. schetm (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Schetm: marriages which have been reported as setting records for length Reported by whom, though? Unreliable sources that each claim the longest marriage in their town or village is the longest in the world or in the history of the world? A bunch of these sources appear to contradict each other, and we can probably assume that very few marriages last more than 80 years and virtually none more than 90 years, so virtually all marriages in this relatively narrow range. Both the Chand and Thomas marriages are fairly well sourced and might merit articles by themselves, but the majority of marriages of lengths within this range are actually not that far off the top spot in terms of number of years, relatively speaking, and there are probably an abundance that also fall within this range but haven't been reported as such because of poor record keeping, or poor reporting, or the persons themselves being private individuals and not wanting the attention (we have to remember that all of these people are extremely old, and when 80-year-old monarchs are abdicating because their advanced age impede their ability to handle their official duties, we can't assume that 100-year-old regular joes who have been regular joes their whole lives are all that happy to be dealing with press). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by reliable sources, of course. That's standard operating procedure on enwiki. The current mood at WP:Longevity stands against biographies of old people on WP:NOPAGE grounds, and I have a feeling that the Chand and Thomas marriages would get similar AfD noms, except there would be no merge target as this list would be deleted. The question for me is whether it would be better to have a broader stand-alone list or a few scattered biographies with little content save the birth and death dates of the couples and when they were married. I think that, in this case, the list as it stands is better able to serve the reader. schetm (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Donald Trump. From reading the discussion it seems like we have some compelling arguments on either side. The "get rid of the article" camp says that the well-sourced content should be put into the Donald Trump article, much of the article appears to be speculation by people not necessarily medically qualified and/or in violation of professional standards (the Goldwater rule has been cited in this context, as well as concerns mentioned - although not undisputed - about the reliability of physicians which have evaluated Trump directly), that it has WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS issues due to e.g privacy violations, that it appears to be a WP:COATRACK to criticize Trump, there may be NPOV issues (I am interpreting Atsme's comments to bd2412 as being about criticism of the diagnoses not being properly relayed) and complaints about the article being unencyclopedic. The concerns about libel/BLP aren't limited to the article content but also apply to the page history, and some people are noted that it might be difficult to keep the history clean of them due to the effort needed at oversighting/revdeleting them.

The keep case is that there is evidence in favour of the claims/he's a public figure where WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies and they are thus not libel and that the Goldwater rule would not apply because it's not a Wikipedia policy or even a generally agreed-upon thing (Tataral's argument), that the whole topic meets WP:GNG - in fact, has received outsized coverage including from Trump himself - and that these considerations would require a dedicated article to discuss. There might be also some issues with the policies themselves, c.f the comments of bd2412. I've seen a sidesuggestion to make an article on Healtherism to cover discussions of the tendency of health claims to be thrown around in the political sphere or of repurposing this article into being about Trump's personality.

Now, onto the outcome itself. Headcount-wise we are 8 merges (I am counting Tryptofish as a merge as well as a delete and Milowent as ), 12+1 (I assume that the nominator wants a deletion) delete, 4+1 (I take that Dallbat wants to keep) keep and some unclear (I take that bd2412 might count as keep or merge). With respect of the arguments, the Goldwater rule is not a Wikipedia policy indeed but there is not so much clarity on whether it'd cast doubt on the validity of reliable sources used here; as noted in WP:MEDRS we apply extra strict standards to medical sources and some questions have been raised (in the discussion subthread under Tataral's post) about whether the sources here are reliable for this kind of information. The other important point would be BLP policy but it's often not clear from the arguments here which stuff supposedly violates it - or doesn't - although the point that it mandates stricter compliance with sourcing standards for biographical information on living people is well taken.

Getting down to it, there seems to be a consensus that some of the material should be covered somewhere (such as in Donald Trump) but that a dedicated standalone article is not appropriate. The main argument for keeping the whole article by Tataral hasn't gained much traction and many others are quite vague or do not make a clear statement "this must be a separate article". Many of the merge/delete arguments are a bit vague on policy statements ("pointless trivia" and the like) but some are grounded in policies like WP:NOTGOSSIP, potentially (potentially, because they are not unrebutted) valid WP:RS concerns and WP:CFORK or WP:ATTACK questions. There are also valid points that some of the content should be kept "somewhere". This strengthens the case for a merge. So with this in mind, merge into Donald Trump as the most commonly cited target seems to be the conclusion that represents consensus best. That does not rule out that content could be copied into other articles if need be, of course.

One last point is what to do with the page history. Merging content usually implies that we keep the history for copyright reasons (which are legal reasons so BLP does not automatically, er, trump them), and history mergers are probably hard/unfeasible owing to the complexity (per Masem). It's not so clear from comments here that the history has BLP violations so severe that a deletion would be required per BLP and Periculum in mora. I was thinking that maybe a redirect close (which immediately gets rid of the article contents and leaves the page history for people to copy stuff from) may be warranted here instead of "merge" (which only leaves a tag on the page before the actual merge), but there isn't enough here to justify that kind of "emergency" response. With these points in mind the history stays, although I could see a situation where a merger and redirect takes place and subsequent discussion concludes that a) no mergeable material exists because e.g it already is in Donald Trump and/or b) that the contents of the page history are too problematic to stay visible and that the history should thus be deleted. I think that WP:RFD would be the correct place for this discussion if it becomes necessary in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health of Donald Trump

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

This appears to be an unnecessary fork, and it's not clear why relevant well-sourced content cannot be included on the main article for the person. Having said that, a large amount of the article appears to be based on speculation, with an afterthought in the last section from the Alzheimer's Society and the American Psychiatric Association explicitly saying that it's unethical for practitioners to conduct armchair diagnosis and provide such information using their professional credentials to the public in any form. There's definitely somewhere in here where we bump up against MEDRS and BLP. The article does not seem to resoundingly meet either, and it's not clear that there would be very much left if all the content not meeting these standards were removed. GMG ^talk 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriate material back into Donald Trump. WP:COATRACK seems to apply here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 6 June 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 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Merge - only the confirmed medical info~~ ^{19:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)} - delete the rest as UNDUE & noncompliant with BLP & NPOV ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Adding: I was further convinced after reading the following information in Vox provided by Jacob Appel, asst. prof. at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, which raises justifiable concerns of BLP vio: "...presidents are entitled to the same patient privacy rights as other Americans, and it’s up to them what gets reported to the public... There is also HIPAA which protects the privacy and security of one's health information. ^{20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)}[reply]
- @Atsme:, can you point to an example of a piece of information in this article that would be protected under HIPAA (and not waived as a prior public disclosure)? bd2412 T 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm no expert, bd2412, and I won't deny that at times I may be overly cautious about compliance with our core content policies, but when medical professionals are providing a medical evaluation of a patient they've never examined, it's downright unethical, and when a medical doctor breaches his patient's privacy, I'm of the mind that it's a vio of HIPAA, which tends to make it a bit more problematic for us to include, especially if the purpose is to denigrate, despite verifiable evidence to the contrary. Hope that answers your question. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, don't we have a responsibility to inform the public of the breach? Otherwise, it makes it seem fine. bd2412 T 22:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - My 1st thought is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, 2nd thought is Harold Bornstein, which would be the proper article for that material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that we can describe it that way only if a source actually says that, but not based on editor interpretation. It also seems to me that whatever news source reported the information is the one that is ethically responsible for publicizing a HIPAA breach, unless we cite a direct communication from the MD. But we still have a BLP-based obligation not to repeat it here if there are any such issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - too much of a coatrack related to criticisms of Trump's mental state as a standalone article (it would be different if we were talking something akin to a clear physical problem lke FDR's polio.) I am tempted to say that no redirect should b left behind, but that makes for a complicated history merge. --Masem (t) 21:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - what's salvageable. Not the mental stuff unless he starts wearing a tinfoil hat. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- 90% of this article is just pure speculation and allegations made by people who have never personally examined him. The actual factual information about his examinations are too trivial for inclusion. Who really cares if he gained 4 pounds in a year?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per user::Rusf10 comment, almost nothing worth merging to a BLP. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It's true that many of the comments are speculation by people who have never examined him, but the sheer amount of speculation is notable. The article as it stands is overly-detailed and disproportionate but there is plenty of material worth saving and moving to Donald Trump Hugsyrup (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- speculative information and possible libel in the mental health section. Most of the infomation should not be merged due to libel reasons as well as speculation per WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:LIBEL Abote2 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The topic is notable, so this is really just a judgment call over whether a separate article is warranted, as we all know it is going to fill with every random op-ed and comment about Trump being a declining mental midget. I agree with Rusf10 that there is a dearth of concrete public information out there. It is probably better covering what is legitimate within another Trump article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Indiscriminate, WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:PROPORTION all fit, particularly the latter, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. I'm of the mind that the handling of the highly publicized health issues that plagued Hillary Clinton sets a good standard for us to follow. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and go back to status quo - Given the WP:BLP issues, does anyone know if extra measures should be taken - perhaps changes to WP policy? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. The fact that there has been such speculation may be more noteworthy than is the content of that speculation, but Wikipedia should not be repeating medical allegations that have not been medically substantiated. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC) revised --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information that is actually confirmed should go in his main article. This is an inappropriate WP:SPINOFF full of speculation and serious WP:BLP and libel concerns. funplussmart (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entirety of this article is either pointless trivia or baseless speculation in violation of professional standards (as well as wikipedia policies). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Goldwater rule prevents mental health professionals commenting on potential diagnoses of politicians and other people whom they have not personally examined, specifically the American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM V, describes such behaviour as unethical. So this clearly places this article into territory that quite substantially violates WP:LIBEL, WP:BLP, WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Little can be merged and particularly because of serious BLP and libel issues I think merging would fail to suppress the editing history, which is necessary when there are libel concerns, e.g., per WP:OVERSIGHT. For this reason I think merging with libellous editing history available for copy/reproduction is not an appropriate option, regardless of one’s opinion of Trump.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expand original - Libel does not apply where there is evidence to support the claim, and top mental health experts have now followed the procedure to give their analysis the status of fact. This analysis needs serious consideration, and in it they explain why the Goldwater rule does not apply and why a personal examination is not necessary. Also, the proposal for deletion was made precisely when the topic started heating up.--Dallbat (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can list sources by many mental health experts who state Donald Trump does not have a mental health or personality disorder and others who say he has ADHD rather than a personality disorder, blah blah. Sources do not agree, but none of these experts have formally assessed him which includes interviewing family members about his childhood etc. It is all speculation and libellous. Finally, you cannot vote twice, especially with differing votes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of confusion is exactly why an expanded discussion is necessary. People are still talking about diagnosis, no matter how many times it is emphasized that diagnosis has nothing to do with dangerousness and ability to discharge the duties of office--which has always been a consensus (in fact, mental health professionals debate ethics because the medical part is not debatable; otherwise, why debate what you can and cannot talk about if there is nothing to talk about?).--Dallbat (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your point of view. You made two votes, please pick which one you are going with and strike the one you do not wish to keep, please. You cannot have two bolded votes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dallbat: - please decide which vote you would like to make. starship .paint (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I changed my vote to keeping the article but expanding it to include the complexity of the discussion, which I think is particularly important, not less, if psychiatrists' voice was significant enough for a professional organization to come out and exceptionally silence them in an extraordinary move.--Dallbat (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dallbat: - you still voted twice. You can strike your earlier comment by inserting <s>Your comment</s> at your above comment. starship .paint (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move, from your reply to me, the “expand original” bolded vote to join it with your above/earlier bolded ‘keep’ vote and leave the rest of your message which was a reply to me here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean by voting twice. I deleted my earlier one, for since learning more, I consider this article all the more vital.--Dallbat (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not cast aspersions like you did with this edit. Even undirected accusations against others without evidence are still personal attacks. Assume good faith on the part of other editors.--v/r - T P 00:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! And apologies.--Dallbat (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no particular objection to merging this to Donald Trump, but we should take care to avoid losing reliably sourced content. Therefore, if merged, any merger should include all material that is reported in sources that Wikipedia generally considers reliable. If there are concerns that these sources are making defamatory claims, then the solution is to carefully state that this is the claim arising from the source, and not an assertion of fact on Wikipedia's part. We should also take care preserve the edit history of the resulting redirect; we can revdel any specific content in the edit history that is not properly attributed to a reliable source. bd2412 T 17:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have an oversight admin who is going to carefully read almost 200 diffs/edits/versions of the page to decide what content is libellous or otherwise violates our policies then this suggestion won’t fly. Also, who is to say the admin won’t have a political bias one way or the other. No, you rev delete a small number of diffs, not an article which is thoroughly problematic by countless edits and diff versions. Too much work that likely will not get done. If someone sees content that is salvageable then now is the time to copy it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any specific edits introducing content that is not properly designated as having come from a specific reliable source? Having practiced intellectual property law for several years - including the defense of defamation cases - no violation occurs where a report by a third-party news organization is properly attributed to them. Otherwise, we would never be able to convey any information at all that any party could consider "negative". bd2412 T 21:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a volunteer, I am not going to dissect 200 diffs just to reply to you, unless you pay me — which is my point above that it is too much work to individually rev delete many many edits. The article content is what we are discussing, no need for diffs. Currently our article strongly suggests Donald Trump has dementia combined with a narcissistic-psychopathic personality disorder without any formal assessment being carried out. The physicians making these armchair diagnoses are violating professional ethics. He must have a funny type of dementia since there has been no deterioration towards dementia, but who cares just so long as it is reliably sourced, it is just Wikipedia after all, eh... The information is unreliable regardless of who published it, so no source can be considered reliable if giving unreliable information. You may have an understanding of law but not psychiatric diagnostic standards it seems since you are defending what you are defending.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
200 edits is actually not that much - I've gone through edit histories of articles with several times as many. I'm sure it will be possible to find an admin willing to do this. With respect to specific assertions in the article, as written it says, for example, " Vanity Fair reported the opinion of a number of mental health experts...", "Jeanne Suk Gerson wrote in The New Yorker...", "Bill Moyers interviewed psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton and said...", "Carlos Lozada, writing for The Washington Post, considered these conclusions..." The reader can determine the reliability of the information based on the source identified, and if there is a lack of clarity with respect to the assignment of these claims, we can clarify the relationship. Teach the controversy. bd2412 T 21:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No they can not determine whether the diagnoses are reliable because Trump has not been formally assessed for these disorders, again you clearly have a very poor grasp of clinical ethics and diagnostic and professional psychiatric standards. Many reliable sources cite Goldwater rule to say these diagnoses should not be being applied to Trump, just google it. It is too controversial, nobody can agree anything about Trump so an admin would only get accused of being too lenient or too harsh in their Rev deletes, best delete the article. I have nothing more to add.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I think most people probably get that we hold ourselves to a standard that is higher than the law. But...I'm not sure the "usual standard" of sourcing necessarily applies when we're dealing with medical information about a living person. That's really double trouble as far as sourcing goes, especially when long standing professional organizations are issuing public statements saying that such statements are unethical. GMG ^talk 22:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo, I hear you, and I even agree to some extent with FoxyGrampa75's suggestion that perhaps some changes are needed to Wikipedia's policies to clarify these situations. As it stands, WP:BLP prohibits contentious claims unless they are reported in reliable sources; these reliable sources are themselves not legally bound by the Goldwater rule. It may be worth discussing whether we should be. Merging some portion of this article into Donald Trump will not by itself answer those questions of policy, since, for example, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump continues to exist as an article despite being entirely about a source of armchair speculation on Trump's mental health. I think that if there are problems with the credibility of, for example, a psychiatrist highlighted by a reliable source, then the better solution is to provide the information that calls this credibility into question. However, to the extent that material from this article is merged into the parent article, I don't see a problem with keeping the edit history under the redirect for attribution. The existence of such a thicket is unlikely to influence anyone's perceptions. bd2412 T 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still stuck on mobile, so I'm afraid I can't get into the depths of nuance. But the notability of a book doesn't necessarily pertain at all to the reliability of the information in said book. GMG ^talk 01:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we approach this question from the opposite direction. If, hypothetically, the existing article were blown up and a new article rewritten from scratch, is there an article that can be written on the health of Donald Trump, physical and otherwise? I think the fact that the topic has been addressed by so many news outlets that we consider to be reliable sources (including sources from all across the political spectrum, though these are not necessarily reflected in the current version) indicates that this is a notable topic, and that an appropriate article could be put together. I'm thinking about this in the long term - long after Trump and the rest of the politicians are dead, there will be interest in what the state of his health was during his presidency (for exactly the same reasons that we now have Health of Abraham Lincoln, and sections redirected from Health of Ronald Reagan and Health of Hillary Clinton). bd2412 T 01:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
bd2412, what you stated above is basically the reason for this AfD - the health sections for Reagan and Clinton were handled properly - they actual had serious health issues and were examined and diagnosed by medical professionals who provided reports that were published in RS, which is quite unlike what this article represents regarding the armchair doctors/psychoanalysts/psychiatrists who diagnosed Trump in violation of their professional code of ethics. If any of their opinions about Trump's mental health is included, then their misconduct should be as well, and a good RS to cite is this NPR article. If consensus says merge, a summary of the results of Trump's actual medical exams can be included in a section in the relevant Trump articles (if they aren't already). If consensus says to merge, then editors will determine what does and doesn't belong in the article via local consensus or an RfC on the article TP. If consensus says delete, discussion is over. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no objection to the inclusion of balancing information. I think that the broader and more complete the picture we provide, the better we serve the reader. I think this is particularly true where there are well-reported matters of public controversy. We can say that we're not going to talk about the controversy at all, as if it doesn't exist, or we can say that we're going to explain what exactly the controversy is. bd2412 T 04:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read the discussions here, the more I am convinced now that this article is more important than any of the others, since there has never been a presidency that has been so controversial, health-wise, from the very start. In fact, more so even than the health of Ronald Reagan or Hillary Clinton: what other president has had dozens of the nation's most famous mental health professionals come forth warning against his "dangerous mental instability," a professional organization changing its ethical rules (most people do not know they instituted a new gag rule with this presidency), and mental health experts still insisting that it is their duty to speak out? This seems historic to me.--Dallbat (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete this disarmingly irrelevant trivia. The standards of BLP have been under absolute siege lately. Ya hate to see it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant "alarmingly". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I said, but both apply. Trillfendi (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, like stunningly unimportant? Or more like shockingly non-notable? Or perhaps amazingly inconsequential? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trillfendi has a good grasp of English it seems, I had to google that word: disarmingly...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alarmingly irrelevant" would make sense but it is not clear to me what "disarmingly irrelevant" would mean. Bus stop (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is, from afar, like a Monet, one would likely look at this article and say, "wow, this is insightful." But when you actually see it for what it is, it’s Daily Mail-calibre ~~horseshit~~ dreck. The reader has been deceived! Politicians aren’t required to give their physicals. It’s purely trivial. If he did have Dick Cheney (God, how is that guy even still kicking...) problems then I would see something to actually write about. Other than that this "Trump is an obese, senile narcissist who can’t form coherent sentences" Twitter-grade psychobabble is antithetical to what this encyclopedia is supposed to be used for. Trillfendi (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG and Emir of Wikipedia: - notify those authorship > 20% and have not commented here yet. starship .paint (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint - there is an AfD template notice at the top of the article itself. Notice has also been sent to several relevant WP projects. Rather than ping a few editors from here which may be misconstrued as canvassing, just point to it in a neutral announcement on the article TP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: - I consider it a courtesy to inform major contributors to an article if their article is up for deletion. These two editors wrote 24% and 22% of this article. Are you saying (1) I should not have informed them at all? Or are you saying (2) I could have informed them differently? If (2), please show me how you would have done it. starship .paint (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SP - I already explained how. Read the last sentence. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: - okay, I've read it again, my conclusion is that you are advocating for option (1). I stand by my decision. Emir has been on-and-off from Wiki in recent months, and JFG has about 10 edits in 5 days - in light of that, I decided to inform them. My rationale is that if I were a major contributor to an article, I would want to be notified. Separately, I've now posted on the TP. starship .paint (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:CANVASS, it is appropriate to inform Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article and also good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.. What I didn't do is post On the user talk pages of concerned editors, I suppose that's moot if I pinged them. starship .paint (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My underline: An inappropriate notification is Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages... You did not post a direct message - you pinged two editors to this AfD which is not neutral notification. You should have pinged them to your neutral announcement about the AfD that I suggested you post on the article TP, rather than pinging them from here. It was innocent enough on your part - I know you meant well - but in the future, notifications must be neutrally written and posted somewhere as a direct message per WP:APPNOTE. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I appreciate the ping, as indeed I have been too busy IRL these days to edit regularly, so I would have missed this AfD. — JFG ^talk 07:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Trump's main biography has enough information about the president's medical exams. A few words about speculation on his mental health would be due, because it has been a political tension point and received a lot of coverage, but definitely no more than a couple lines. This article is too far out. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. This is a notable subject, and the sourcing is good. Libel is not an issue here when we use published sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. For those interested in how libel laws work in these internet days, Barrett v. Rosenthal changed everything by providing immunity from liability for the republication (not original publication) of defamatory content on the internet. Only the original publisher can be held liable.

In short, our standard is BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If it's notable, we must cover it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Trump's health has been covered more than any other president's, but we have to keep this in perspective with the fact that Trump's <anything> has been covered more than any other president's. I believe that we are facing a case where WP:PAGEDECIDE leans towards inclusion of the health topic in the main biography. A lot of it is intimately linked to his age (covered in the biography), his way of speaking (covered in the biography) and political battles (covered in the biography). Ergo, the main biography alone provides the necessary context for readers to evaluate what has been said about Trump's physical and mental health. — JFG ^talk 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Trump's health has been covered more than any other president's Really? More than Wilson stroking out so badly his wife became acting president? More than FDR being an actual cripple? I find that hard to believe. GMG ^talk 16:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Wilson and FDR were two-term (or more) presidents. Trump's health has been covered more than any recent president, possibly more than Reagan's. bd2412 T 17:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I did mean "any recent president". Never heard about Wilson's wife before today; thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not about birtherism. Collapsing per WP:WAX — JFG ^talk 10:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Allegations of Trump's mental issues do not rise above gossip and speculation attributed primarily to his detractors and political opposition. Liken it to Obama's birther detractors and see how much of that garbage was considered encyclopedic for inclusion and how it was presented. The same applies to Hillary Clinton's blood clot and fainting spells, and her overall state of health during the 2016 campaign - was any of that speculation and armchair diagnosis published in media reports included in her WP articles? Short answer - NO, it was not. WP should not include opinions by armchair medical pros who are violating their own professional code of ethics. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t think you should compare the claims that Obama was an illegal alien -- pure racist nonsense -- with the large number of respected psychiatrists that have commented on Trump’s mental health. Having said that, I have always argued against inclusion of this material as I don’t like armchair analyses, even from respect medical professionals. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a complete article about birtherism and Obama. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about staying on topic and not making this discussion about me - it's about the coatrack article subject of this AfD. Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: We have an article on the movement, not an article about whether he is legally an American or not.--v/r - T P 23:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not sure what "movement" you're referring to, but~~ we do have this article, which documents a lot of nonsensical and libelous claims, "garbage [that] was considered encyclopedic for inclusion," with Trump being the most notable proponent: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. We followed WP:PUBLICFIGURE and created an article, just as we should in this situation. We also have this one: Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article is largely just trivia and doesn't warrant being included in an encyclopedia due to quality concerns. 71.215.83.8 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC) — 71.215.83.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge the content that is cited to physicians that have actually treated him to Donald Trump and delete the rest.--v/r - TP 23:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would find such a limitation slightly problematic, given the history of Trump's physicians apparently falsifying medical information in his favor. bd2412 T 01:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A perfect example of why this article is pointless and should be deleted. The only people qualified to discuss the subject routinely lie about it. In other words, there's no such thing as a reliable source on this topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BD2412: I find it more problematic that we'd keep conjecture from people who have never had access to the man to properly diagnose him in an article about a living person. If you want to keep the sourced material, it should be in an article about the event. Not from a Trump health perspective, but from an event perspective similar to Birtherism.--v/r - TP 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something along the lines of Trump derangement syndrome? bd2412 T 23:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that article appears to be about something else. I'd make it about the recent willingness of psychologists to ignore the goldwater rule. Has that happened to this widespread level ever before?--v/r - T P 23:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, never before. The American Psychiatric Association never worked so hard in a public relations campaign, either, to silence mental health professionals. Never were there hundreds and thousands of mental health professionals organizing against this silencing. A book of just 27 of them became an instant bestseller--this is historic. It seems to me we need an article covering all this and the reasons why "the Goldwater rule," which was considered obsolete the moment it entered the books, which has been scientifically refuted several times (mostly recently, the Lilienfeld article from 2018), and which even the APA was discussing eliminating before the Trump campaign, suddenly became the law of the land. Numerous APA members resigned from the organization for its "trumping up" the rule against trends of science and practice, which has changed entirely to diagnosis based on observation (whereas in Goldwater's time it was based on introspection), while remote diagnosis has become routine with the prevalence of telepsychiatry. The APA leadership itself admitted that it did so not to lose federal funding. While the APA refused to do a poll, an informal poll by the American College of Psychiatrists showed that an overwhelming majority of psychiatrists believed the rule needed to be changed. Some have pointed out that this ONE rule of ONE private association among many of ONE type of mental health profession among many (psychiatry), violates the Geneva Declaration of the World Psychiatric Association, which obligates speaking up against dangerous regimes. All this ought to raise questions and mandate in-depth reflection.--Dallbat (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see nothing wrong with having this article, it's part of the Series of Donald Trump Aritcles, If we delete this article it's basically saying that we should delete all Donald Trump articles and only keep the Donald Trump article. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unlikely to be compliant with WP:NPOV. It is inevitably an attack on Trump. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with good sourcing. Much better than the main article on Trump. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a highly notable topic, and a well written and well sourced article that is an established part of the Donald Trump article suite.

The health and personality of Donald Trump is probably the most widely covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources. There is an enormous body of expert commentary the world over, including entire books (The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President). Clearly countless reliable sources consider this topic to be very important for understanding Trump as a politician. Trump himself has commented on his health on many occasions. The topic clearly meets GNG.

The opinion of a private association in the US on whether it is "ethical" for individual psychiatrists in that country to comment on Trump's mental health is simply not relevant for our discussion of the notability of this topic. The problem with this fallacious "argument" is that

it is presented as a pseudo-legal requirement that trumps the massive coverage of the topic in reliable sources, but is in reality based on a completely non-binding request from a private association within one particular profession within a single country
it has been massively ignored and rejected by members of that profession even within their own country; as they have continued to comment on his mental health in newspapers, on television, in academic papers and books, conferences
it never had any relevance at all outside of the US, and numerous experts from other countries in Europe and elsewhere have weighed in on Trump's personality/mental health, both in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and also made strong direct arguments for why it is appropriate to comment on his health and personality. We could even base our entire discussion of his personality on experts from other professions (such as psychologists) and other countries. Americans can't simply invoke opinions of private associations in the US and assume that this is binding on us Europeans and people from other continents.
the request was related to the personal conduct of psychiatrists in the US, not public discourse. It does not follow from that request that Wikipedia shouldn't include such discussion when the sources out there already exist, that's just SYNTH/OR.

We have numerous other articles that cover the health and personality of prominent politicians – whether dead (Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler) or living (Kim Jong-un#Personality) – and I've only seen an attempt to argue that we "can't" cover it in the articles related to Donald Trump. No need to give Trump special treatment and ignore our usual policies just for the articles on him.

Also note that the main Donald Trump article is written in Wikipedia:Summary style, so most of the coverage of this topic would belong in a separate article, with only a short summary in the main article. --Tataral (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your analysis is that is ignores two basic core values of Wikipedia. This article isn't about "Health of Donald Trump" despite the title. It's a coatrack. What is really is, is about "Wild speculation of Donald Trump's mental health by psychologists who have not examined the subject". If you want it to be about his health, we limit it to sources that cite his actual doctors. So, WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK are the primary issues here and BLP is a core policy. We don't ignore it just because the rest of the world has decided to do away with ethics.--v/r - T P 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have to base our articles on him on "his doctors". Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. The "who have not examined the subject" part is not something that is relevant for Wikipedia and our content policies. And one private association in one country, the US, doesn't get to dictate what is "ethics". A number of other experts have made strong arguments for why the ethical thing to do is to comment on his mental health. The "not examined the subject" crowd is clearly in the minority among the experts who have commented on this issue in reliable sources; outside the US this fallacious argument is not even taken seriously and mostly ignored. --Tataral (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they haven't examined him, then they are not a reliable source. If you think otherwise, then the next time you get sick, rather than going to see your doctor, ask him to diagnose you over the phone.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. --Tataral (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an obligation to use editorial judgement here per BLP. Just because there is an RS doesn't mean it should be covered. There are multiple policies at play and we need to remember that we're not a gossip site.--v/r - T P 03:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)−[reply]

Reliable sources have clearly demonstrated that countless experts and commentators consider this a very serious issue worthy of serious discussion, and not "gossip". This well developed and long-established article meticulously complies with BLP and other policies. --Tataral (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip according to Google: "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." WP:GOSSIP: "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Both of these clearly apply to what is happening here. Experts or not, none of them have examined him. That they are experts doesn't matter because they haven't had access to his medical records or treated him. They are gossiping. And we don't cover that.--v/r - T P 23:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, at least some of them are not claiming to have heard rumors through the grapevine. They are observing public patterns of behavior, just as a primatologist might observe the behavior of a group of monkeys and draw conclusions about their social structure. bd2412 T 00:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not "gossip", but expert opinions based on verifiable, public information, and reported by reliable sources. 2) Whether anyone "have examined him" (a completely arbitrary requirement of yours) is irrelevant. 3) We are covering this issue because it is a notable topic that meets GNG and because of an abundance of high-quality reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: A primatologist would have direct access to the monkeys - these psychologists do not. They are gossipping. @Tataral: 1) The topic of psychologists making claims without examining him is notable and I've already suggested that BD2412 start an article on that very topic. 2) Apparently we aren't covering the issue because consensus is to merge everything but the mental health gossip to his biography article. 3) It is gossip and you're making an appeal to authority logical fallacy.--v/r - T P 01:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So does psychopathography of Adolf Hitler need to be deleted in your opinion? Is it "gossip"? The experts cited didn't examine him, in fact they had far less access to him, and far less material to build their conclusions on, than the experts who have assessed Trump have. --Tataral (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to delete that article, you march right over there and do it. I'm at this AFD talking about the merits of this article.--v/r - T P 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a primatologist, given many hours of a footage of a monkey boisterously marking its territory and otherwise engaging in behavior typical of monkeys with a certain state of mind, could draw valid conclusions about its state of mind. For example, our article on the killing of Harambe states, with reference to a citation, that "Primatologist Jane Goodall said that according to the video it seemed Harambe was trying to protect the child". bd2412 T 01:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only entertained the primatologist argument briefly but if you want to continue down that track, I'm going to ask if you consider psychologist to be equal in discipline to primatology.--v/r - T P 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important, I think, to distinguish psychologists from psychiatrists, who will have a medical degree in addition to their training in psychological analysis. At least two of the mental health professionals named in the article are specified in the sources to be psychiatrists. Of course, these people will have been required to receive substantially more training and education than a primatologist (Dian Fossey, for example, only had a bachelors degree in occupational therapy before becoming a renowned primatologist). Mental health professionals will generally have the added advantages of being able to observe not only body language, but the actual words people say, from which to form opinions of the mental state of the subject. bd2412 T 02:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought we were coming to an agreement above, did you not like that suggestion? The consensus seems to be leaning towards delete or selective merging without the conjecture/gossip. I think if you wanted to save a lot of the material, an article called something similar to non-contact diagnosis of Donald Trump's mental health would be a good place but the title obviously needs work. The article would be about the movement of thousands (according to Tataral) of psychologists that have diagnosed him without examining him.

Obviously, their conclusions would be covered so I think it's a reasonable compromise.--v/r - T P 02:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healtherism? Seriously, though, I think that would be a reasonable compromise. There is certainly a distinct phenomenon of mental health professionals forming opinions about Trump in a way they have not about previous presidents (there was also Bush on the Couch, but that was a single psychoanalyst, as far as I can recall). If GreenMeansGo is amenable to such a solution, I would be favorable to making this an article specifically on that movement (and the APA response to it) and moving it to an appropriate title. bd2412 T 02:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healtherism is too broad a topic and could also cover the claims that Hillary was on her deathbed leading up to the 2016 elections. But, yeah, I think we're at a compromise as long as the change in article title comes with a change in article topic as well. It wouldn't be the same article, but I see significant overlap.--v/r - T P 02:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to follow this super closely. Anyway, I don't see that my opinion is singularly important just because I was the nominator. GMG ^talk 03:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I just had a stray thought, and tell me if you're not interested, but what if we did do an article about Heatherism about medical professionals speculating on politicians health? It did happen to HRC during the 2016 campaign and that was notable too.--T P (alt) 17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources discussing this as a general concept, and we can put a name to it, I think that would be reasonable. The situation with numbers of mental health experts specifically commenting on Trump's state of mind, however, seems to be its own uniquely notable phenomenon, without historical precedent for a holder of this office. bd2412 T 21:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm not particularly attached to the idea. Just figured I'd throw it out there. I have about zero interest in this topic overall and not even sure how I landed here.--v/r - T P 21:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous other articles? GMG ^talk 03:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a giant HIPAA violation. That’s what it is. Trillfendi (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi:, are you asserting that this article has been edited by Donald Trump's healthcare providers and their associated business, which constitute the entities covered under HIPAA per 45 CFR § 160.103? bd2412 T 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Who in their right mind would think that a Trump associate was writing this crap? Trillfendi (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume, someone who thought there was a HIPAA violation here, since HIPAA only applies to institutions and entities that are actually treating a patient, and their associates. If you'd like, I can provide you with some HIPAA materials that I worked on while assisting professionals who were working in the field. bd2412 T 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bd2412, I understand what your saying, but I wanted to clarify why I thought it best for us to exercise caution. Perhaps this article explains it best. It doesn't hurt to be cautious. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per that article, "a reporter relying on a public document or public official—is not liable for the any harm resulting from repeating a defamatory statement". Wikipedia exists for the purpose of documenting encyclopedic information and conveying this to the public. We are within the reporter's privilege. I haven't seen any kind of action being taken against the mental health personnel who have actually provided their medical opinions, much less against sources like the New York Times, BBC, or even Fox News, which have reported their claims. With as broad a body of reporting as there has been, we shouldn't proceed as if the claims don't exist, but I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice. bd2412 T 20:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is possible that this article should be titled "personality of Donald Trump" rather than "health of Donald Trump", and that its scope should be adjusted accordingly. The main issue in the coverage of this topic is how his personality affects his presidency, the United States and the world, and whether he poses a danger to his country or the world (many experts argue that he does). His personality is a broader issue than just his health; a person's personality doesn't necessarily have to be pathological in nature or described in the form of diagnoses. Psychologists and other experts can offer insight into the personality even of a person with no mental illness. While thousands of mental health professionals[6] have weighed in on Trump's personality and mental health, the debate is broader and includes commentators from other fields too. --Tataral (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to move the goalposts. The article before us is the health of Donald Trump. You're not only suggesting renaming it, but adding different content. The personality of Donald Trump is a completely different topic and we do not have to discuss it here.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I proposed personality as the primary focus weeks ago when discussing the inclusion of this material in the main biographical article, so this is what I always believed was the better focus. It's perfectly natural to discuss the improvement, scope and focus of the article here. It's not "a completely different topic", it's a somewhat broader perspective that also includes his mental health, but that isn't limited to it, and that also focuses on how his personality affects his actions as a politician. --Tataral (talk) 02:35, 12 June 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 Fairy chess piece#Tripper. There is unanimous agreement (including the nominator) for redirection and that there is sufficient usage to warrant WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tripper (chess)

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

Was prodded two years ago ("adequate sources do not appear to exist") and de-prodded with the rationale "save the stuff here, to wait a bit for Ihardlythinkso's stores of material". Since then, there have been a total of 4 edits to the article, whose value you can judge for yourself. I find no evidence that this has been the subject of discussion or analysis anywhere, ever. JBL (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ihardlythinkso: to see if he has sources giving significant coverage. I created the article; note that, since the piece is mentioned in Fairy chess piece as one of the basic leapers, it can probably be redirected there if it turns out that notability cannot be demonstrated. Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we discussed before. If earlier I mentioned "Fiveleaper" and/or "Root-50-Leaper" in this context ("Other Named Leapers", Dickins 1971, p. 11), that w/ be wrong as those pieces have "double-pattern movement". Dickins p. 30 has null entries in his "Named Leapers" table for "3rd-step" orthogonal and diagonal leapers. Also from p. 30, "V—GENERAL · A. THE THEORY OF MOVEMENTS—Leapers, Riders and Hoppers.":

All chessmen in all three categories are derived from one or both of the two basic single-step Leapers, the Wazir (orthogonal) and the Fers (diagonal), which cover between them all three squares of the 'first step' from a1. The Dabbaba (orthogonal), the Alfil (diagonal) and the Knight (angular) cover between them all five squares of the second step. There are not enough named Leapers to cover all the squares of the remaining steps, but wherever a named Leaper does not exist, a numbered one may be used, thus: 0-4 Leaper, 3-5 Leaper, etc, etc.

(Italics added by me for emphasis.) So clearly it's 3-3 Leaper per Dickins. (Dickins, Anthony (1971) [Corrected repub. of 1969 2nd ed., The Q Press, Richmond, Surrey, England]. A Guide to Fairy Chess. New York: Dover Publications Inc. p. 30. ISBN 0-486-22687-5.)

There's nothing I know of re it in either two Pritchard encyclopedias. Sorry that's all I have! --IHTS (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, in the absence of significant mentions with the name in reliable sources, I would favour redirection to Fairy chess piece#Tripper. (Since the name is in some use online, such as this site predating the Wikipedia article, it strikes me as a plausible search term.) Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 7 June 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 List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon animated shows

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

This list is for the most part uncited, and includes trivial information that probably could never be referenced. Some of the information I tried to verify and cannot (e.g. anything about "Juban Productions"). Also a glowing target for LTA Nickelodeon vandals. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is redundant to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, which could have been done through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This is redundant to Nickelodeon Animation Studio where this appears to be spun-off (i.e. copied) from and as nom points out could attract Nick vandals thus not a good candidate for simply redirecting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Nero

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

Not a notable design studio. Fails WP:COMPANY. 9H48F (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current references do not indicate a level of significant coverage needed to meet notability guidelines and a web search doesn't turn up anything of greater significance. Peacock (talk) 18:00, 13 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sangat Singh

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

Other than a few brief mentions, and a short bio on a government page, not enough to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded a year ago, due to that government blurb, but no improvement since then. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the sole source which grants his non-notability. ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is just a line and not an article and poorly sourced Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mere (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played or managed in a WP:FPL, but may be available through WP:GNG. MYS 77 ^✉ 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify Subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY now but almost certainly will in a few months as his team has been promoted to the Segunda Division, a WP:FPL. I'd need more time to decide if he meets GNG, but this content should exist somewhere as if he's not notable now, he will be soon. Smartyllama (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No need to draftily, can be restored if/when he manages in FPL. Giant Snowman 07:43, 7 June 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 (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Luddy

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

previously deleted and recreated. Appreciate an admin checking to see if G4 applies. Fails WP:ANYBIO by a country mile. Obvious vanity/possibly UPE article. John from Idegon (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He passes WP:GNG with what's in the article now. Forbes [7] and Bloomberg [8] both give him significant coverage of how he went from broke to billionaire. Also the fact it was deleted 13 years ago doesn't mean it can't exist today since it now has reliable sources giving him significant coverage. The AFD at that time mention his company article was up for deletion too and it was also deleted then recreated later when it became notable. Dream Focus 17:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn perhaps I was a little hasty here. There are patterns that one like me who edits a lot of notable lists sees that indicate UPE and this hit all the check boxes. Still think it is likely UPE, but the guy does appear notable. Will close. Smack me with fish at will. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 6 June 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitygrid

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

Now here's an odd thing. Page was created by User talk:Markgaukrodger in July 2013, and that is the main contributor. They have made no edits to any other article page and none since 2015. Their talk page shows that Capacitygrid was tagged for deletion in June 2013, but the article history does not go back that far and no deletion tags are shown. Presumably, it was deleted and then recreated???? Whatever, there is no evidence of notability, it has forever been tagged as "advert" and for 4 years as "orphan". Emeraude (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warda (film)

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

Another short film I'm having trouble finding notability for. As a note-I can find films from 1956, 2014 and 2018 with this title, but none from 2008. Getting tons of matches for a 2014 film with this name though. But this one? No. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J'ai bu du café dans un café, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La cita (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Fenêtre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humburgun (All of these have a similar case, have much more I have tagged from the same creator) Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Wgolf, i see you added a deadlink tag to the FCAT reference, for your and other editors info here is a link to the external links reference that works, hooray!:)) although it doesn't help much (see below) :( Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there may be some copyright issues here as the article synopsis is exactly the same as the source given. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, nothing found in googleland that is remotely reliable, source cited in the article gives the synopsis only. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Jafar Awards

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find any independent sources – in English, Hindi, Punjabi, or Bengali – discussing these awards besides this one listed in the Wikipedia article. The non-English searches weren't very thorough as I don't speak those three languages, so make of that what you will. May warrant a short mention, however, in Bhopal gas tragedy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:31, 8 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet Singh

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

Insufficient coverage to meet WP:DIRECTOR, and only brief mentions in sources given. Article creator is likely the subject, based on the username. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info - page was twice deleted as WP:A7 (one of those in combination with WP:G11). Previous incarnations were created by now-blocked user Mr. Sumeet Singh. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have had this on my watchlist and it's been an uphill battle trying to keep it neutral in the face of promotional editing by obviously connected editors who think they own the article. It still is a case of WP:PROMO and is mainly original research so it's best deleted. If better sources can be found in the future a neutral editor would be better skilled at recreating a non-promotional article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The earlier Mr. Sumeet Singh WP:SPA was blocked for self-promotion in August 2016, the similar WP:SPA Sumeet3131 creates this instance in September 2016. The provided references are mere passing mentions for the subject / his company, and do not support the WP:PEACOCK claims in the article text. Although there is a lifestyle item in The Tribune(2015) promoting the subject, I do not see evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 13 June 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Albrecht

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Played just two games in the DEL and at least 90 is required for a goaltender. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 12 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lehr

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Only played five games in the DEL and at least 90 is required for a goaltender. The junior World Championship is also not counted for #6. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 12 June 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 noted by people here, WP:RS has somewhat restrictive criteria, and people here are not convinced by Lagasta's long arguments that the sources and claims meet that, and there is also the point that most sources here cited are not quite comprehensive. In addition, having lots of views, comments and fans is not by and of itself an argument for notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zûg

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but then again, this article has already been deleted once before, five years ago, when the artist was using his full name – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Zugarramurdi. Not the easiest subject to search for under his new name, since the artist now lives in Germany, and "Zug" (without the unnecessary circumflex) is German for "train" and also the name of a town in Switzerland which happens to host an annual techno festival, which is the music genre that this DJ/producer plays. Nevertheless, I can't find anything more than the references already cited in the article, and none of them pass WP:RS: one webzine, one French website with the standard one-sentence press release and "listen to his new song streaming in the link below", and the rest are online record stores, and their reviews of the record that obviously they are trying to sell to the public. The article creator has stated elsewhere that they are the owner of Contumancia [9]], which is the management agency for Zûg and other artists. They appear to be creating a walled garden of articles related to this artist, none of which are remotely notable and should be put up for deletion as well, but let's start here. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the name "Zûg" is written with the circumflex and not without it. It is not written or pronounced like the German world "Zug" or the city in Switzerland. If you search for "Zûg" on google you will have about 21.300 results related to the artist and also the search box will suggest all related searches like "Zûg - Algunos Sentimientos", "Zûg - EP 1", "Zûg - EP 2", "Zûg - EP 1 (PROS001)", "Zûg - Interstellar", there is also at least 4 videos in youtube published by external sources with more than 25k views and lots of comments from fans. This all proves that it does not fail WP:GNG. It also not fails WP:MUSICBIO because of the 3 previous publications of works on different record labels. Also does not fail to WP:CREATIVE since the recordings are regarded as important works of electronic music by the most expert voices on the genre. It also not fails WP:RS since the sources are absolutely reliable since all the people that buy records in all those shops around the world trusts on the reviews written by the experts. The experts would never write lies in their reviews because they will lose their credibility. And when at least 3 expert and independent reliable sources from different corners on the planet have compared the album with the most essential works on the genre, it only means that is relevant and reliable. Record stores are the most reliable sources on music because what they sell is music, so is their business to be experts and know about music, they will never state that an album is magnificent if they do not really think so. While magazines are not reliable sources since what they sell is advertisement and are influenced directly by money or deals, they are there to create hype.

The album 'Algunos Sentimientos' by Zûg has been compared to the most essential micro-house music ever written by most experts of electronic music 'connaisseurs' being the people behind the biggest record shops in the world who only write reviews of most notable music works and their reviews are hardly ever comparing recordings with the most essential records ever produced. If you read many reviews from Amoeba Music in the U.S. and Juno Records in the U.K., you will see that they are almost never comparing records with the most essential records ever published. When the most discerning and knowledgeable people in the world on the subject state publicly that they are impressed by the works of a musician and draw comparisons with the most notable pieces of music of the genre ever written on the history of electronic music, it can only mean that the music is truly relevant, thus should be included in Wikipedia, knowing that there are dozens of other electronic music producers listed on Wikipedia without having the recognition that Zûg has from the real experts on the subject. It should be more relevant, an artist with only 1 or 2 really good records, than an artist with a dozen not that good records.

Lagasta (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lagasta (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Lagasta, I mentioned "Zug" without a circumflex because it's a viable alternative search term for this artist – in fact, the Juno Records and Amoeba Records websites that you quote and have used as sources in the article both spell his name without the circumflex on their websites [10], [11]. I am just saying that although it is clearly a viable alternative search title, the fact it has various meanings in German just makes it harder to use as a search term. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120, That is because the server from those websites does not allow special characters as Wikipedia or Discogs do. But we know they are talking about Zûg (Musician) or Zûg (DJ). If your search term requires a special character you need to type it, in order to get the right results. Lagasta (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject falls short of notability guidelines by a country mile; I don't have anything to add to the nom. As far as the arguments for keeping it listed above by the article's creator go, using the fact that this DJ has videos about him on YouTube with 25k views and "lots of comments from fans" to try to advance notability is ridiculous, and implicitly attests to how far away from notability guidelines this subject is. They throw out completely unsourced claims that the most discerning, expert minds in the music industry are praising this DJ's work as "magnificent", and they go on to argue that Zûg should be included, "knowing that there are dozens of other electronic music producers listed on Wikipedia without having the recognition that Zûg has", which is patent whataboutism. I don't think I need to point this out, but literally nothing in that impassioned prose about this subject's notability holds up to any actual scrutiny. Comment: Algunos Sentimientos should be looked into for nomination as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27: you see now from the length of this argument why I felt it would be best not to bundle the song into this nomination for now... Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Yeah, I uh... Probably should have seen that coming, in retrospect. Sorry about that. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27, the General notability guidelines state that reliable sources address the topic directly and in detail like Amoeba Music, Juno Records and Phonica Records has with Algunos Sentimientos. Amoeba Music is the voice of experience in music and they explain [12] in detail why the music written by Zûg in (Algunos Sentimientos) is magnificent or magic. And that falls short for a trivial mention. They address the topic directly and in detail. That is why it complies with Wikipedias General notability guideline [13]. Same as the words by Juno Records in the U.K. Lagasta (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in order, we have the website of a chain of California music stores, an online database of questionable notability, and I guess a London-based vinyl website. Even if we cast aside how notable these sources are, you claim that these sources address the subject in detail, yet combined, these three entries don't even amount to 300 words. What you seem to be caught up on is how the authors of these entries perceive the album; you keep focusing on how they call it, for example, "magnificent". But that's not the issue at hand; for all anyone here cares, these entries could call Zûg's work the best music ever, the worst music ever, or anything in-between. What matters is the sources themselves and how much coverage of the subject is given between them. Per WP:GNG, notability means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; < 300 words spread across three websites of questionable notability falls well short of guidelines. Ultimately, Wikipedia has to place a limit somewhere, else it just becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. For the case of recordings, that limit is WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. For all I know, more searching may turn up new sources that advance notability, but this is incredibly doubtful. Nonetheless, that kind of search is something for another day. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27, it feels like you are demeaning everything. You say about Juno Records that you guess is a London-based vinyl website, when there is even an article in Wikipedia talking about Juno Records which is the biggest online record shop in Europe specialized on electronic music. And you talk about Amoeba Music as a chain of record stores in California when anyone who has a bit of knowledge on music is aware that is the most respected record shop in the world with a youtube channel with 300k viewers. This records shops are the voice of experience. Through them goes all the electronic music on existence. If you have questions on electronic music you need to ask them. You obviously did not research enough on the sources at all. I think that when the most expert and relevant and trusted sources being Amoeba Music and Juno Records state individually that a piece of music is comparable to the most important works of music on a specific genre in all history of House Music only means that the article is relevant. And you can also trust that this Wikipedia inclusion will only happen today and only today. This is not happening every week or month or even year.Lagasta (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This records shops are the voice of experience." But they are not reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and no amount of argument is going to change that. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lard Almighty, If you know of some other entity as or more reliable on electronic music than Amoeba Music and Juno Records please tell us and case closed. Lagasta (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case is closed. They are not reliable. You cannot rely on them per Wikipedia policy. Period. As the creator of the article, it is up to you to find sources that meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. There are lots of reliable music industry publications out there (e.g. NME). Can you find a single one where Zûg has received coverage over a period of time? Lard Almighty (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lard Almighty, why you say that according to Wikipedia the sources Amoeba Music and Juno Records are not reliable? Lagasta (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red reliable sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lard Almighty, I did read reliable sources and there is nothing there to indicate me that Amoeba Music and Juno Records are not reliable. Amoeba Music and Juno Records are third-party. Lagasta (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely questionable sources. Do they have reputation for fact checking for example? Do they have editorial oversight like a reliable newspaper does?

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. An example is the Daily Mail, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per this RfC. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.

When millions of people around the world trust their judgment knowing that they only want to offer the best for the people, there is nothing to question. Is not politics, is music. They have also limited copies of the music so is not that they are lying because they want to sell the records, they only have few compies. They win very very little money. And normally there is no repress for this kind of editions. They are 1000 in existence (500 of each) plus 10 test pressings hand painted by the artist and some people pay up to 7 times the price [14] [15] [16] from the regular edition. With their review, they are only doing their job. The job of a record shop is to offer the best they have on each genre from the music they get from different distributors. We are talking about underground electronic music, cult music. The editions of records are about 500 records. This is not mainstream. I will write in here soon an article for 'Contemporary Underground Electronic Music Movement' for you to understand more the situation. But first I hope you understand why the voice of Amoeba Music and Juno Records are the most reliable sources on contemporary underground electronic music. Lagasta (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines are like movies, movies of real life, they have all this characters to play with and tell the stories they want with them and what matters is how many cars they have or how much money or how cool they look. While the record stores like Amoeba Music only talk about the music, music for them is serious and is again the only thing that matters. What matters in the magazines is the pictures, cause is a print, there is no music on magazines. The music is in the record shops like Amoeba Music and they listen to music all day. Lagasta (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reliable sources that meet the guidelines for inclusion. Lagasta: I buy stuff from Juno all the time, and I love their DJ charts. I also once spent a small fortune in the Amoeba store in San Francisco - it was easily one of the best record shops I have ever been in. And I LOVE going in Phonica (despite the occasionally moody staff) and I've spent more in there than I'd care to remember over the years. But these are retailers, not journalists, and they do not meet the requirements to be classed as a reliable source. — sparklism ^hey! 13:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think like many others that the record stores have THE word on the music. They own it. But if you want to put in front of them the magazine publications is up to you, but is not fair. Anyhow I will write the article talking about the electronic music culture in Berlin, I hope to find enough Reliable Sources to show that Berlin is the center in the world for underground electronic music. Is something it needs to be in Wikipedia for the world to know what's going on here in the capital of techno, and not written by some magazine but written by people that live and breath in the scene. Is like talking about the hip-hop in the Bronx back in the day. Is what's happening here, and is important for the history of electronic music. And of course, I will include Zûg and many other Producers DJs, record labels and independent distributors that are releasing all this cult music that is the electronic music of our times, 2019, 2002, and I am not talking about David Geta or all that commercial circus. I am talking about electronic music made by today's most talented electronic musicians creating music for cultured people. So if you want to delete Zûg's article now you can do it. But sooner or later the page will be here. So I want to propose to keep this article in Wikipedia until I finish writing the article on the electronic music scene in Berlin, capital of techno. Lagasta (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on Berghain, Tresor and Matrix which have sources that can help with your proposed article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiography of non notable musician. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promoting yourself. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Stores are not independent of the products they promote and sell. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, sources discussed above are not wikireliable as record stores are in the business of selling records, and may promote musicians on their websites accordingly (in a similar way, WP does not accept author/book reviews from bookstores as reliable, although people/customers in non-WP land may use such reviews in their reading/purchasing decisions). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia screening test

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

This article is about a non-notable mobile phone ap (it is not a medical test in the traditional sense). The only reference in the article that actually mentions the app is a product review. ~~The rest of the article is medical information about dementia, not directly related to the product described~~. Edit: I have now removed the off topic content from the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if this page wasn't listed on the AFD notification page, or just didn't get any traction. I agree with the nominator this article seems more like a company trying to get their app popular by having a wikipedia page vs a popular app that happens to have a wikipedia page. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:51, 13 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Zet

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

Not too sure about this, some mentions in connection with joint projects, and some page not available links. Even the stuff we have seems to be no more then a paragraph or two announcing a new album. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a disruptive nomination as there is already plenty of significant coverage in Burmese reliable sources referenced in the article. This Mizzima source [17] is a strong one: independant, focused and coverage of him. meets WP:NMUSICIAN #1,#2,#5. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm going to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that someone who was apparently given a seven-minute profile/interview on MRTV is in fact "one of the most popular hip hop singer [sic] in Myanmar". Full disclosure: I don't speak Burmese, so for all I know he could be saying in the interview "I'm definitely not even in the top ten hip hop artists in my hometown, let alone in Myanmar. I have no idea why English Wikipedia will have an article on me in four years time -- nor even how I know that. Anyway, I gotta gear up for the Greek debt crisis and US and Cuba re-establishing diplomatic relations later this year. It's 2015!" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Published two albums (Pyaw San Par with another artist in 2015 and Za solo in 2017), but I can't tell if they were on a major record label or not to meet NMUSIC #5, nor whether anything went gold to meet NMUSIC #3. However, appears to meet NMUSIC #1, if not GNG, by virtue of the 7-minute interview posted by Hijiri and [18] [19] [20], plus coverage of a fatal concert brawl [21] and [22]. Some of these are definitely reliable sources, others I can't tell, but erring on the side of keep because it's clear we don't have good access to foreign-language sources here. – Levivich 18:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AGF. Miniapolis 23:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NSINGER #1 (explain per above) and #5 as "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", he released his albums on a major record lebel Legacy Music see here [23]. Shin Khant (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources as per Levivich so passes criteria #1 of WP:NMUSIC and has also released on a notable record label so should be included #5. I don't like hip hop music but this singer is one of the most popular hip hop artists in my country. KoHtee (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AGF- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:44, 8 June 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatan Ibile

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

Similar notability level like Naira Marley. A promising upcoming artist that fails WP:MUSICIAN. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG.

The Nation "19-year-old student wins Airtel One Mic Talent show"

The Guardian Zlatan Ibile Is The Street’s Latest Pop Culture

He's credited with popularizing a dance called Zanku. See "Zanku: the new viral dance that has taken over the Nigerian music scene" (Pulse Nigeria) and "Is Zanku Set to Be the New Dance Craze of 2019?" (OkayAfrica).

Vanguard "Naira Marley, Zlatan Ibile, others arrested by EFCC over Internet Fraud"

Pitchfork "Two Nigerian Rappers Were Arrested by the Government for Scamming—But Did They Do It?" Blumpf (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he seems to have plenty of substancial coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above and therefore passes WP:BASIC and so he deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Blumpf.Tamsier (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a whole lot of coverage on the subject from reliable sources. Clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as his song has been on the country's national music chart. Lapablo (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. article Meets WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 10 June 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've read all the delete and keep comments and it's clear that consensus doesn't exist here. I can re-list this AfD if someone is terribly into it, but given that this band – as one of the editors pointed out and so does the article – is the Belarus Government's National Award Winner for Best Rock Band in 2012, ^{if you may} it's probable that a re-list may spring up more sources... or not! As the keep editors points out, winning the national award may push the band over the WP:BAND criteria, but just. I am closing this as a no consensus, but have no prejudice over an early renomination provided at least a month is given for editors to spruce up the article.

On a side note, there is significant weight in TheTechnician's claim against Pr12402 and I would strongly suggest to the said editor to understand and read WP:Canvassing and ensure they don't contravene the same going forward. That said, the canvassed editors seem to have clean hands and reasonable judgements; so there's not much to do here. Lourdes 16:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open Space (band)

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

This band completely fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The band has been the subject of an article in one notable publication, Zvyazda, and said article is a softball interview, meaning even it fails to advance notability per it not being independent. Additionally, the article has been the victim of WP:REFBOMB and more broadly WP:MASK, imparting an illusion of notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: I'm going to cut this nonsense to a minimum for any administrators reading. Pr12402 is the primary maintainer of this article. Rosguill and Vit Koz were both inappropriately canvassed into this thread by Pr12402 (see WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate_notification). Rosguill was canvassed here, and Vit Koz was canvassed here. Moreover, Melilac was also inappropriately canvassed here, but never showed up. The messages to Vit Koz and Melilac both include "Foreigners here too obsessed" and "Of course, the one who nominated, does not know the source language", and all three were canvassed specifically because Pr12402 knew which way they would vote. Note that I would probably have never known about any of these had Rosguill not thoughtfully disclosed they had been canvassed in their vote (I had to dig up the other two), as they were never disclosed by Pr. Regardless of how the administrator reading decides to vote, this should be taken into consideration, and I feel Pr12402 should be banned from participating in these discussions due to their flagrantly inappropriate, manipulative behavior. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the provision to kindly invite “Editors known for expertise in the field” over at Wikipedia:Canvassing, both cases are examples of an appropriate notification, since the notability question is raised about a Belarusian band and the main scope of references put and can be put here are both in Russian and Belarusian. Vit Koz is an expert in Belarusian, can contribute at a decent level in Russian, and more (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=+Vit+Koz). Melilac has shown such useful to this discussion skills as well (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Melilac). So they may help in evaluating sources in these languages.

What it comes to Rosguill, this user has put into words takes that showed expertise in the field of WP:GNG (“Editors known for expertise in the field” over at Wikipedia:Canvassing) over at Talk:Obongjayar, plus, recently declared that knows Russian here. What's wrong? ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯

P.S. Upon opening up the deletion discussion, Marusyandiya, the author of the initial article, had not been informed to let him/her chime in here. So TheTechnician27 violated the rules of such procedure. -- Pr12402 14 June 2019

Response Please see here where I explain why what you did is both campaigning and vote-stacking – and therefore inappropriate notification – per WP:CANVASSING#Inappropriate_notification. It's excruciatingly obvious based on your own words that you left on their talk pages that you didn't care about their """expert""" opinions (I'm sorry to poke fun at your wording; I'm sure WP:GNG is a difficult field of study), but rather that they would reinforce your opinions in this thread. The fact that you completely fail to even acknowledge this is further evidence that you should not be allowed to participate in other discussions like this.

As far as your red herring about notifying the article's creator and "violating the rules" goes, 1) "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion" per WP:AFD, and 2) Marusyandiya was last active on the English Wikipedia over 8 years ago; as it's not required and as this user dropped off the face of en.wikipedia almost a decade ago, I didn't feel it prudent to notify them of an ongoing discussion. I can't tell if you legitimately don't understand Wikipedia's guidelines, or if you're simply trying to warp them to distract from your blatantly inappropriate attempt to manipulate this nomination thread. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Pr12402 7 June 2019

I don't see any valid causes to put the article into the deletion process. At now, the notability is bolstered up by various independent, reliable sources, such as Lenta.ru, European Radio for Belarus, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, and more. Anyone can dig into the article and click on the links already put there. I don't know why TheTechnician27 had failed to do that initially without pointing out flaws. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯

According to the deletion discussion taken place on Hair Peace Salon, experty.by (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experty.by), Muzykalnaya Gazeta are considered as “such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music” we “should rely on,” which would make the question about the deletion of Open Space a question of the value of this music portal and the music newspaper.

In the meantime, more references can be added though as well. I may do that over time too. Pr12402 7 June 2019

Okay, some brief context for editors: this user is one of the primary maintainers of this article (EDIT: Upon further investigation, I believe this user has a COI), and the reason why the article is littered with dozens of frivolous references. It was brought to their attention both by Scope creep and I the other day that their rampant WP:REFBOMBing isn't acceptable. They've demonstrated a clear mentality that more references = more notability, completely disregarding the quality of the sources. The two most surreal examples of this is are article Hair Peace Salon, which currently has ~~327~~ 181 (now, thanks to Scope creep) references, and the article Gentleman that has a sentence: "Plenty of additional shows in support of the new album material, acoustic and full rock ones, were given during the next half of a year, including the third appearance at the annual “Acoustic of Spring” event in March 2013", which is haphazardly supported by an absurd 30 references. Now that that's out of the way, since Rosguill seems to address your points about sources below pretty thoroughly, I'll respond to two quotes:

"Anyone can dig into the article and click on the links already put there. I don't know why TheTechnician27 had failed to do that initially without pointing out flaws."

I did, and I fail to see why you assume I didn't. Not all of them, mind you, since by your handiwork this article is brimming with, again, dozens of unnecessary references, but I nonetheless sifted through the vast majority of them and uncovered nothing establishing notability.

"In the meantime, more references can be added though as well. I may do that over time too."

I don't know how many people need to tell you this or how many times you need to be told, but the problem isn't with the quantity of your sources; it's with the quality. Frivolous sources saturate seemingly every article you touch, making looking into all of them like dealing with Gish gallop. It doesn't help make the subject more notable; it just further overcrowds the article's citations, tanking the quality of the article. It's patently obvious that you refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem, and if this article is kept, it and other articles you've disruptively edited will need to be fixed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to Rosguill, an admin over here as I believe, on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, GNG sources should be actually read as “secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.” While “multiple is intentionally left vague, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and because source quality is more important than source quantity, but in practice it usually means "at least three.” Therefore the article completely meets WP:GNG. -- Pr12402 7 June 2019

Comment #2. By the way, such deletion discussion was raised over the Russian Wikipedia about 6 years ago (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:К_удалению/18_августа_2013#Open_Space_(группа) ), and the attempt to delete the article was failed. I just slightly piggyback a bit on the links from there referenced to evaluate notability: National Music Award winners, best albums of 2012, reviews, interview, and news, news, news, news, news... Obviously, notability not diminishes over time. -- Pr12402 7 June 2019

Comment so I'm not an admin (and even if I were, being an admin is no big deal), and to be honest I'm not really sure what the sections Pr12402 has quoted from a discussion I had several months ago have to do with the discussion at hand here. The issue is that most of the cited content isn't secondary: it's either question-answer interviews with little-to-no independent analysis, announcements made by the band itself, or brief mentions in Top 10 lists by music editors.(also I'm not sure how you could be under the impression that this article is an example of source quality over quantity). I'm not going to go through all 43 sources right now so I'm going to refrain from voting. Based on the sources that have specifically been brought up in this discussion, it would come down to whether experty.by is a reliable source––if it is, then I think keep is the correct decision. However, I don't think that a single comment without replies on a previous AfD establishes a consensus that the source is reliable. Based on briefly reading the cited Lenta.ru, Muzykalnaya Gazeta and European Radio pieces, I don't think those have significant enough coverage to contribute to notability, although the Muzykalnaya piece is borderline as it does include a few paragraphs of independent information before the interview. As an added note, in general you're going to be better off citing actual policy and guidelines rather than conversations you've had with other editors. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep reviewing it a bit more closely, I think that experty meets the rather low reliability bar for music and other uncontroversial topics. I would also encourage people participating in this conversation to look at the sources provided for the linked ruWiki article, as it is a much more concise list, and also includes this review which is an actual example of unambiguously secondary coverage. I wouldn't trust "Belarus Today" for political news, but I think their music review can be regarded as reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing that now that I've voted keep, my participation in this discussion could be seen as the product of canvassing per this message on my talk page. I'd like to think that I've been impartial in my judgments, but I think it's best to disclose this and leave it to the closing admin to decide how to assess my contributions to this conversation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your rationale here. Could you provide the specific articles you think make this subject notable so I can address them specifically? It's tedious to sift through citations when one article's are entirely in Russian, and when the other article's has dozens of unnecessary citations due to citation bombing (no less, by the person who invited you to take a look into this nomination thread). I'd ask Pr12402, but they seem to consider essentially anything notable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would refuse to even begin sifting through a mountain of sources like that if I didn't speak the language. Luckily I can speak Russian:
[24] starts off looking like a database entry, but if you scroll down, it's actually several decent-length reviews by separate writers for the site (dubbed "experts", hence the site name). I've honestly never heard of the source before, but they have an editorial board so I'd say they're good for music until I see someone say otherwise.
[25] is a bit long on quotes, but it's also got some legitimate secondary coverage.
Meanwhile, in Muzykalnaya Gazeta, we've got an interview that comes with a four paragraph secondary introduction [26] and a concert review [27].
They also won a government award of unclear importance. [28]
Plus the piece in Belarus Today that I linked in my previous comment.
There's probably more buried somewhere in the pile, I don't think I looked at even half of them (although I did focus on the more promising-looking ones), but I think this is enough to make me vote keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said I wouldn't address these before, but upon editing some of Pr's other articles, I think I have a stronger grasp on the notability and reliability of these sources. So in order, we have two sources from experty.by, a Belarusian music site which I still think fails WP:RS. Then we have an article from Muzykalnaya Gazeta, which is just a music magazine based in Belarus that I can find basically nothing about. The fourth is yet another a source from experty.by, this time about an award which is of dubious importance. And then finally there's an op-ed from Belarus Today, a source and author whose reliability I know nothing about. Since sources from the same place are considered one for notability purposes, we have experty.by, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, and Belarus Today, that is, respectively, a Belarusian music website of dubious reliablity, a local music magazine, and an op-ed from an online newspaper. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheTechnician27, I'm a bit of an inclusionist when it comes to pop culture topics in media landscapes I'm not familiar with. The bar that's generally set for music-related topics is that if it's a fully professional publication that has an editorial board and doesn't obviously engage in promotional content, it can be considered reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Addressing the takeaways brought by TheTechnician27, whose knowledges in the field of evaluating sources in the Russian or Belarusian languages are yet to be shown or proved, given the absence of his edits over the Belarusian and Russian Wikipedias (https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=TheTechnician27&fbclid=IwAR1CrtRJpi0sfT2TjzZJlWOK1qfmHVEKbORX-73H5Qv8T-4f1DUXpV7dslQ), we may lean towards Rosguill's takeaways as he, despite not having corresponded to the language of the main scope of sources edits yet too (https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Rosguill&fbclid=IwAR3_OpS8KcjRLy80ptp3CfHKQPFsBG-3cRRJx2OhuYUUNBn8HYHML2fDIxA), declared that knows Russian to work with such scope of sources at least. Hence Rosguill's vote to keep is going to be counted on.

Once again, according to the deletion discussion taken place on Hair Peace Salon, Tuzin.fm “seems to be one of the major evaluators of the hits in Belarus music.”

Experty.by is going to be considered as a high-profile source too, since its editorial staff was sort of an all-star example, to name a few critics: Дмитрий Подберезский (founder of the portal, ex-chief editor of Muzykalnaya Gazeta, music columnist over at BelGazeta, author of the music encyclopedia "Энцыклапедыя беларускай папулярнай музыкі" https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15621375), Олег Климов (ex-chief editor of Muzykalnaya Gazeta, music columnist over at Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya (https://www.sb.by/author/153909-oleg-klimov/), anchor of music programs over at the National State Television and Radio Company of Belarus network), Сергей Будкин (founder of Tuzin.fm, anchor of music programs over at Belsat TV (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belsat_Music_Live)), and so forth. It is a pity that Rosguill ventured an insulting tag "experts" (so-called) before getting acquainted with the ins and outs.

Let's enumerate sources (more can be added too). We see, there are multiple ones with under the WP:RS umbrella.

Zvyazda – http://www.zviazda.by/be/news/20160817/1471464035-open-space-my-chuzhyya-pesni-graem-yak-svae
Muzykalnaya Gazeta – http://www.nestor.minsk.by/mg/articles/2006/41/0200.html, http://www.nestor.minsk.by/mg/2007/34/mg73404.html, and more.
Experty.by (Belarusian music portal: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experty.by) – http://www.experty.by/content/open-space-pressure-audio (4x album reviews by Дмитрий Подберезский, Дмитрий Безкоровайный, Сергей Будкин, Олег Климов – album #2), http://www.experty.by/content/open-space-deal-silence (4x album reviews by Дмитрий Подберезский, Дмитрий Безкоровайный, Сергей Будкин, Олег Климов – album #1),http://www.experty.by/content/gruppa-open-space-otkrytye-prostranstva?destination=node%2F710 (interview), https://www.experty.by/content/open-space-vylozhili-albom-v-set-i-uchat-angliiskii (reviews overviews), http://www.experty.by/content/radi-kontserta-open-space-fanatka-gruppy-rasproshchalas-s-kavalerom-foto (concert review via European Radio for Belarus), https://www.experty.by/content/open-space-radi-millionov-serdets-my-i-kitaiskii-vyuchim-fotovideo (interview via European Radio for Belarus), https://www.experty.by/content/open-space-evropu-budem-ne-brat-rvat (interview), http://www.experty.by/content/open-space-nashu-muzyku-luchshe-khavayut-v-evrope (interview via TUT.by), and many more: http://www.experty.by/category/artisty/open-space
Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya – https://www.sb.by/articles/po-pravilam.html (album review)
Rolling Stone Russia (Russian music magazine: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone_Russia) – http://web.archive.org/web/20120504035047/http://rollingstone.ru/articles/music/review/11150.html?reviews (album review)
Tuzin.fm (Belarusian music portal: https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzin.fm) – http://mpby.ru/news-3532.htm (album review), http://mpby.ru/news-3536.htm (EP breakdown), more: https://www.google.com/search?q=open+space+site:mpby.ru&rlz=1C5CHFA_enBY608BY608&ei=mzj9XNLAGafmrgTB2KaYDw&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiS-oXI7dziAhUns4sKHUGsCfM4ChDy0wMIbg&biw=1680&bih=877
LiveSound.by (Belarusian music portal: https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveSound.by) – https://web.archive.org/web/20081003132725/http://livesound.by:80/articles/british-lovers/ (full breakdown of Hair Peace Salon vs. Open Space)
etc.

P.S. I have to point out TheTechnician27's unkind behavior here, who is trying to bring Rosguill into an alliance to go against me with sort of #Guidance talks, intentionally not wikilinking my username to let me get a notification. TheTechnician27 had been originally informed by me with a kindly proposal to #Pump the brakes. Apparently, Rosguill is going to support such shenanigans. This one line was for admins who will summarize the deletion discussion. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

First, allow me to say that this accusation has nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination at hand and thus does not belong in this discussion thread; nonetheless, since you've lodged such an accusation, I'm inclined to respond. Response: It's transparently disingenuous to suggest I was trying to form some sort of "alliance" against you with Rosguill; I merely asked of them the following: "I was hoping you might be willing to help guide me, or to hear me out as a fellow editor." Rosguill then informed me – without prompt and of their own volition – that you had attempted to bully them by threatening to nominate one of their articles for deletion after they PRODed one of yours; they went on to state that you are WP:NOTHERE, an assessment I fully agree with. Of their own discretion, they further reopened my ANI discussion to report your bullying, and two other experienced editors with whom I'd had no prior relation voiced their concerns about you – including supporting some form of ban – on the now-reopened incidents discussion.

As far as forming alliances pertains to this discussion, however, I would like to note that this editor attempted to inappropriately WP:CANVASS both Rosguill and another editor named Melilac to vote in this thread. To be clear, I didn't intentionally decide not to wikilink your username, but in hindsight, I'm exceedingly glad I didn't. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got mixed up in the mess over at Hair Peace Salon, which was created and preposterously ref-bombed by the same user, Pr12402. (Edit - He/she did not create the Open Space article but ref-bombed it later.) I suggested keeping Hair Peace Salon's article but reducing its trivial tidbits by a good 90%, an idea that Pr12402 has spent months resisting with red herring arguments. Pr12402 will spend pages and pages arguing about whether a source is reliable, but consistently misses the point about whether anything notable has been said when a reliable source briefly mentions the band in question. This here article on Open Space is overwhelmingly the victim of WP:REFBOMB and more broadly WP:MASK, as said nicely by the nominator. Yes the band has been mentioned in reliable sources, but almost every single mention appears to be a brief point about some minor tidbit of information, such as the fact that the band's song was played at some time and they were once on the same stage as someone else. (continued below...)

No evidence of notability just because they have several short mentions of trivial details in some reliable sources. Here is an allegory I used in the old deletion discussion for Hair Peace Salon: There might be a New York Times article telling us what John Lennon ate for breakfast on July 11, 1975 because he was interviewed that day and the journalist casually asked what he had for breakfast. This does not mean that an encyclopedia article on John Lennon needs to mention that he enjoyed some pancakes on July 11, 1975 even if that non-notable tidbit is in a reliable source. This is where ref-bombing gets you. Open Space has nothing but trivial tidbits. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520, the refbombing is making it difficult to split wheat from chaff, but I think [29], [30], [31] comprise more than trivial coverage, although you can dispute the reliability of the latter two. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I could be persuaded of Open Space's minimal notability, but if so we need assurance that the wheat really will be separated from the chaff, which in turn would reduce this article by a good 95%. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The refbombing only began in earnest with Pr12402's heavy involvement with the article starting in May 2017, so one option would be to revert to before then. Alternatively, as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the ruWiki article has a concise references section that includes almost all of the significant coverage, with the possible exception of the RollingStone piece (I wouldn't blame anyone for not having seen it, though, given the bloated nature of the discussion). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:JUNK roughly sums up my feelings about all of the articles Pr12402 has created or, like this one, effectively hijacked. If there's a consensus of minimal notability for Open Space, while I currently disagree, so be it; in that case, I think the article should be WP:TNT'd and rebuilt from the ground up with actual good, reliable sourcing, to the extent that it's even possible. The problem, of course, is where we draw the line at reliable, because Pr will undoubtedly take a mile if given an inch. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What type of coverage are you asking for? There are various high-profile album reviews, long interviews that are not short mentions, eg. trivial coverage. Melilac, Vit Koz have already expressed their thoughts over at the Hair Peace Salon deletion discussion, so Experty.by, Muzykalnaya Gazeta, Tuzin.fm shall be considered relable. I've brought to the discussion here some background of their stuff too. Do you know other reliable sources in the field of Belarusian music to refer to?

Ah yes, I forgot that Melilac and Vit Koz were the sole arbiters of reliably sourcing information. I guess we may as well replace WP:RS with "Just ask Melilac and Vit Koz lol". That I don't know of other more reliable sources in the niche field of Belarusian music has no impact on the notability of these sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many wikipeidians over the Belarusian and Russian Wikipedias, band natives, who know Belarusian and Russian and also known English to dispute in this language very well. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

According to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles the notability of the article has to be proved right. There are 2 albums: one on West Records (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Records), one on Vigma (https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigma). Both labels last/lasted for a dozen of years, have/had a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable: N.R.M., Jitters, Hair Peace Salon, beZ bileta, Krambambula, etc. for West Records, Vasily Rainchik, Polina Smolova, Alexander Solodukha, Eduard Khanok, Victor Vuyachich, Igor Luchenok, etc. for Vigma. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

It appears, deliberately or not, that you've misread WP:BAND. Its very first line states: "Musicians or ensembles [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", and the article's lead section states, "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Moreover, it would seem like an overwhelming majority of those bands and artists you list have questionable-at-best notability, with HPS obviously being the most notable, relatively speaking. That these artists have a Wikipedia article does not advance their notability in any meaningful capacity. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just had to delete these pages first. At now, these articles about bands/singers are on Wikipedia. Once again, the Open Space article passes WP:GNG (multiple WP:RS coverage) and WP:BAND (under the album provision #5 at least). -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

According to criteria for musicians and ensembles, Open Space passes

#1 (another album review to add on top of all what has been brought here already http://ultra-music.com/articles/releases/7994, http://ultra-music.com/articles/7851 (article about the band lead vocalist), and more)

+ European Radio for Belarus (album review https://euroradio.by/open-space-pressure), https://euroradio.by/open-space-z-novym-mini-albomam-u-pragrame-euraradyyo (on-air radio show), https://euroradio.by/prezentacyya-na-euraradyyo-singl-tancuy-ad-open-space, https://euroradio.by/report/vital-macieuski-belarusy-hochuc-razumec-pra-shto-spyavae-vykanauca-126383, https://euroradio.by/open-space-vypadkova-znyali-antyvaenny-klip-videa, more

#2 http://www.experty.by/content/luchshie-albomy-2012-top-10-za-pervoe-polugodie-audio (top-10 album in 2012)

#7 National Music Award 2012 winners (as Best Rock artist): http://ultra-music.com/articles/reviews/10940

"Rock Coronation Awards" 2009 as "Best Pop-Rock Band".^[1]

#12 Obshchenatsional'noe Televidenie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-mynbYcAow, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8kEUe9dD2E

Ctv.by (one of 3 main TV channels in Belarus https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/СТВ_(телеканал,_Белоруссия)): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqIkj8HJUC4 / http://www.ctv.by/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82-%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D1%8B-open-space-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8bAItV4zAo

Tut.by (the most visited Belarusian web-portal, producing online-TV too) https://news.tut.by/kaleidoscope/280249.html, https://news.tut.by/tv/234357.html (2 live QA+gigs over there), https://news.tut.by/culture/212607.html, etc. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

Comment:. I admit that the article contains insignificant facts. But this is an occasion to improve and refine the article, and not to delete it. You should rely on such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music as "experty.by" or "Muzykalnaya Gazeta". Such sources attach importance to the subject of the article. Vit Koz (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthro Productions

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

Shortived defunct events management company. Article sourced to its own website. Nothing substantial by way of sourcing apart from this to be found. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Numerous citations that impart no notability give the subject an illusion of being notable, but the subject upon further inspection fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. See also: WP:MASK. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:57, 6 June 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. Per the uncontested arguments that provide evidence of notability, and the lack of any detailed argument for deletion. Michig (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antec

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NZXT (2nd nomination). ViperSnake151 Talk 15:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Thompson, Robert Bruce; Thompson, Barbara Fritchman (2005). PC Hardware Buyer's Guide: Choosing the Perfect Components. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 6–10. ISBN 978-0-596-00938-0. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
Creacy, Darrel; Vicencio, Carlito (2005). Dude, You Can Do It!: How to Build a Sweet PC. Berkeley: Peachpit. ISBN 978-0-321-33416-9. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
Mann, Parm (2015-05-27). "Review: Antec P380". Hexus. Archived from the original on 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
Chase, Kate J. (2005). Build it Yourself VISUALLY: The Ultimate Media Center PC for Under $999. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-7645-9984-2. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
Lee, Garbutt (2010-03-30). "Antec P193 Advanced Mid-Tower Case Review". PC Perspective. Archived from the original on 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2019-06-05.

Sources with quotes

Thompson, Robert Bruce; Thompson, Barbara Fritchman (2005). PC Hardware Buyer's Guide: Choosing the Perfect Components. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 6–10. ISBN 978-0-596-00938-0. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
The book notes:

Over the years we've used scores of different cases from a dozen or more makers. For the last several years, we've used and recommended Antec cases almost exclusively. Antec (https://www.antec-inc.com) offers a broad range of cases in sizes from microATX to full tower and server models. They have several product lines, including the value-priced Solution Series, the portable LANBOY Series, the mainstream Performance Series, and the specialized Lifestyle Series. Every Antec case we have used has been well designed, solidly constructed, and finely finished. Less expensive Antec case models include their superb TruePower Series power supplies. Antec cases enjoy wide retail distribution, and are readily available at big-box stores and other local retailers.
Here are the cases we recommend for specific purposes:
Economy System
[Discusses Antec cases for Economy System]
Business or Mainstream System
[Discusses Antec cases for Business or Mainstream System]
Performance or Gaming System
[Discusses Antec cases for Performance or Gaming System]
Small Form Factor
[Discusses Antec cases for Small Form Factor]
Other/special consideration
[Discusses Antec cases for Other/special consideration]
Creacy, Darrel; Vicencio, Carlito (2005). Dude, You Can Do It!: How to Build a Sweet PC. Berkeley: Peachpit. ISBN 978-0-321-33416-9. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
The book notes:

Antec (www.antec.com): Antec cases are well designed, with the builder in mind. They have smooth edges, great materials, logically placed racks, slide-in rails for your drives, great power supplies (some of the best in the industry), and the price for these cases is fair considering the quality and care that goes into them. In other words, the Antec case is hard to beat unless you're willing to spend a lot more money for a small jump in quality.
...
The Antec Sonata ($120, www.antec.com) is an awesome, awesome case. It's a beautiful piano-black case with door covers for the drives and power switch and a neon blue light on the cover that conceals your front audio and USB ports. The power supply is an Antec TruePower 380 watt (True380) power supply that is of much higher quality than the Antec SmartPower (and any other power supply that's included in most cases). This power supply has better cooling, more stable power, and more connectors for all of your internal components. The Sonata is also a dream to work inside. There are very few sharp edges (if any) and it has a roomy design, which is good if you have big hands.
...
The Antec Sonata ($120, www.antec.com) is our favorite case and we use it for most of our builds. If you've read the previous chapters, you know that we recommend it a lot. How could we not? It's a beautiful, piano black case with door covers for the drives and power switch, and a neon blue light on the cover that conceals your front audio and USB ports. The convenient location of the USB ports makes it easy to plug in digital video camcorders and digital cameras—perfect for the Multimedia PC. The Sonata is also fun and easy to build with because it has a spacious interior with few, if any, sharp edges.
Mann, Parm (2015-05-27). "Review: Antec P380". Hexus. Archived from the original on 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
The article notes:

It wasn't that long ago that Antec chassis would have been high on the list of most users' candidates for a new PC build. Founded way back in 1986, the Californian manufacturer had amassed a wide range of well-received enclosures and when we asked our readers "which PC chassis do you use?" we weren't surprised to see a fair few still rocking an Antec case.
But times have changed, and in this fiercely contested marketplace, the Antec brand doesn't hold the swagger it once did. Facing stern competition from various newcomers such as Corsair, Fractal Design and NZXT, Antec has struggled to be noticed in the enthusiast space, and if you had to pick a moment for the downturn, you'd probably look back at 2011's LanBoy Air - a once-intriguing modular concept that never lived up to its potential.
Still, it's a new day, and Antec is hoping for a return to form with a stylish high-end chassis dubbed the P380. Priced at £160, this premium full-tower solution is tasked with bringing Antec back to the fore, so let's see if it succeeds.
...
As is the case for many readers, we've been quietly hoping that Antec will one day re-emerge as a first-rate producer of premium PC enclosures.
However, while the manufacturer's high-end PSUs are among the very best, its top-of-the-line chassis are leaving something to be desired. With the P380, Antec had the makings of a beautiful full-tower enclosure that offered super-sleek aesthetics and plenty of room for even the most elaborate of builds.
Chase, Kate J. (2005). Build it Yourself VISUALLY: The Ultimate Media Center PC for Under $999. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-7645-9984-2. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
The book notes:

The Antec Case

The case shown here — the Antec Quiet Media Overture Piano ($108.71) — was chosen based on a few different factors. The manufacturer has a decent name and reputation. The case size is large enough to hold not just what will be added in this project but offers room to grow. Its design should result in adequate air circulation through the unit to keep internal components from overheating.
Lee, Garbutt (2010-03-30). "Antec P193 Advanced Mid-Tower Case Review". PC Perspective. Archived from the original on 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
The article notes:

Antec is a well known and highly respected name among PC enthusiasts and their line of PC enclosures, power supplies, and PC accessories is one of the most complete in the industry. Antec’s Performance One series includes three models: the Mini P180 (and Mini P180 White), P183 and P193. The P193 is an updated version of Antec’s popular P190 enclosure. At first glance it looks similar to the P183; however the P193 features more room inside with improved airflow and a lower selling price!

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

Cunard (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antec has received substantial coverage in books and publications.
Here is analysis from Hexus in 2015: "It wasn't that long ago that Antec chassis would have been high on the list of most users' candidates for a new PC build. Founded way back in 1986, the Californian manufacturer had amassed a wide range of well-received enclosures and when we asked our readers 'which PC chassis do you use?' we weren't surprised to see a fair few still rocking an Antec case. But times have changed, and in this fiercely contested marketplace, the Antec brand doesn't hold the swagger it once did. Facing stern competition from various newcomers such as Corsair, Fractal Design and NZXT, Antec has struggled to be noticed in the enthusiast space, and if you had to pick a moment for the downturn, you'd probably look back at 2011's LanBoy Air - a once-intriguing modular concept that never lived up to its potential."
Here is analysis from an O'Reilly Media book published in 2005: "Over the years we've used scores of different cases from a dozen or more makers. For the last several years, we've used and recommended Antec cases almost exclusively. Antec (https://www.antec-inc.com) offers a broad range of cases in sizes from microATX to full tower and server models. They have several product lines, including the value-priced Solution Series, the portable LANBOY Series, the mainstream Performance Series, and the specialized Lifestyle Series. Every Antec case we have used has been well designed, solidly constructed, and finely finished. Less expensive Antec case models include their superb TruePower Series power supplies. Antec cases enjoy wide retail distribution, and are readily available at big-box stores and other local retailers."
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antec participants who have been active in the last 12 months: Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), Stormbay (talk · contribs), Dhartung (talk · contribs), Whpq (talk · contribs), and RainbowOfLight (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:CORP in light of WP:PRODUCTREV. In addition to the sources listed by Cunard, Antec's products are regularly reviewed in depth by reliable sources such as Tom's Hardware ([32] [33]), PC Gamer ([34]), and NDTV ([35] [36] [37]). — Newslinger talk 02:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Waldman

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted and was recreated after deletion. Contributing editor Msurtees10001 is the subject and has a conflict of interest. Article subject isn't notable. 9H48F (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nooka seems like the logical thing to do here. There is new coverage of Waldman (last AfD was 2006), but it seems exclusively about the Nooka watches. See this Core 77 article, this TechCrunch article, this Forbes article, this Designboom article, this FastCompany article, this Wired article (about an Umbrella product by Nooka), this article in The Columbian, this decent book entry on Waldman and Nooka, this NY Daily News profile, an interview in Bare Magazine, this Gizmodo entry and another Core 77 article. In these articles, Waldman is consistently mentioned as the founder/force behind Nooka, however, except for the NY daily News, the coverage is really primarily about Nookafirst and Waldman second. Also, note that COI is not a relevant criteria for deletion. Lots of COI editors have created articles on notable subjects. In those cases, we keep them and make them neutral rather than delete them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUnderstand about the COI, just bringing it up 9H48F (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and nominate Nooka for deletion. A company that needed $90K to stay afloat from an Indiegogo campaign is truly tiny. They also dare call their products chronographs when what they really sell is plastic pieces like this. Both articles do not mention anything negative about either Waldman (failure of his design studio Berrymatch aka apartment in Chelsea) or Nooka which teetered on extinction ever since 2008. These things are in the sources, but not the articles. Also, this company does not maintain sales offices around the world nor does the source support that (it's actually one which speaks of Nooka as a warning for startups). Both pages stink to high heaven of WP:PROMO and/or WP:VANITY. And to some extent it worked (one sources tells its readers to learn more about Nooka by reading the Wikipedia page). His claim to fame seems to be he designed a single watch for Seiko once upon a time (before Nooka) which is now being presented as "commisioned work" done by Nooka. Neither Waldman nor his company come anywhere close to notable. The Wikipedia articles do not represent the truth in any objective or balanced manner. --SVTCobra (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merge to me implies that all or even a majority of this content should be migrated to Nooka, but Waldman probably at best deserves a brief section in the article. Per nom, fails to meet notability guidelines. Comments: If Msurtees10001 is indeed who the nominator claims to be, someone should raise the issue on his talk per WP:COICOIN. Also, @SVTCobra: I know literally nothing about Nooka, but it was fun to read through such an impassioned rant. Finally, the external link to PingMag which reads "NOOKA: The Info Aesthetics of A Wrist Watch" brings me to an ad for an ED drug, and thus I've restored it to an archive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to make it clear Msurtees10001 is not Matthew Waldman, but rather Michael Surtees another wannabe product designer with a passion for horology ("the study of measurement of time" - which I think he equates with having cool watches). I say this with a lot of certainty because of Talk:Nooka. They are both NYC based and definitely know each other IRL. I was unable to ascertain if Surtees worked for Nooka (or maybe he's a backer), but he has been to the office and has spent a lot of time promoting Nooka designs on social media. There's a remarkable amount of pages that mention both names together. Therefore, I posit it is still WP:COI. Surtees has a whole other vanity website which seems to be dedicated to photos of how awesome his life is, but that's neither here nor there. The point is there is a COI, but it is of second-degree nature, not first degree. I feel these pages have been created to lend credibility to Nooka and Matthew Waldman in whatever fundraising efforts are undertaken. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability requirements. And citation source #3 - the link to Parsons long list of adjunct faculty - does not list him but rather a Jeffrey Waldman. This would mean that the sole citation to verify the exhibitions listed in the article is not credible. Maybe merge with Nooka article, but that is weak as well. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 11 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup squads

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

As we already have the squads from a particular World Cup already in the template. This page isn't really of much use any more. HawkAussie (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list cruft, somewhat pointless except as a navigational aid, and the category, which all of the linked articles are members of, does exactly that job. ClubOranje^T 06:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 08:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - less important. Barca (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Electric (The Cult album). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace (The Cult album)

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

Back in the 2000s this article was AfD'ed at least three times with no consensus reached. Back then this item was a hot topic among the band's fans, but now perhaps enough time has passed for an assessment by cooler heads. This is an unreleased album that was an early version of the true album Electric (The Cult album) and was also included in the Rare Cult compilation. This unreleased album has almost no independent media coverage of its own, with all mentions pointing to those two other albums, and the topic borders on fancruft. This article title should at least be redirected to Electric (The Cult album) and possibly deleted altogether because the saga is already described in the articles for those two later albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Electric (The Cult album). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Cult - this album was originally unreleased, and the article is brief enough for a merge to be reached. I am happy to change this to a merge with Electric (The Cult album) if consensus suggests this. Vorbee (talk) 06:36, 6 June 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. Seems like this discussion moved towards keep after the relist, with the key arguments being that coverage still occurred long after the fact and thus WP:SUSTAINED is satisfied. Concerns about the lack of recent edits are not really within the purview of deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traingate

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite the extensive contemporaneous coverage, this page has been dormant for three years now. The last time the AfD issue was raised, the admin punted with no consensus to work from, though the discussion "tended" towards deletion. Since, this incident has received almost no coverage in the British press and virtually none internationally. This event has very little influence on British politics, Labour, and Corbyn today, and thus I believe it should be deleted. Tedfitzy (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tedfitzy (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep but massively trim, for example the whole of the "Reactions" section can probably be deleted. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious case of WP:NOT#NEWS, as should have been done when this was first created. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still would like to "delete" but I will be cutting the entire "Reactions" section. We can proceed from there. Tedfitzy (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a significant event in Corbyn's political career. Could be trimmed by all means. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: we're at a deadlock here with 2 in the keep camp and 2 in the delete camp - let's see if another week can give us more conversation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in reliable sources from the years after the incident occurred are trivial to find. For example it was the subject of an entire chapter in a 2017 book about Richard Branson and several pages of this 2018 book on Corbyn's career. Indeed, "Traingate" as a political phenomenon lasted for over a year since the incident occurred in 2016 but Virgin's release of footage of the incident occurred in 2017. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY once gained notability cannot be lost, and so it is with this incident - it received WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a period of years and, having become notable, will never become "not notable" due to the page being dormant. Also, WP:NEGLECT is not a good reason to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim is false. There was a second round of coverage in 2017 when more CCTV footage was released. And there's now accounts of the matter in books, as noted by FOARP. Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you are correct to have restored the material which was recently removed in the "massive trimming" on 3 June, while the article is still being discussed here. A major trim may still be warranted, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This was a rather ridiculous stunt by Corbyn out of peak because a train was too full for him and his assistant to sit together. It may be useful to trim it somewhat, as it is too long for the teacup storm that it was. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NEVENT, coverage over an extended period of time from reliable sourcess, to trim or not to trim (that is the question:)), is irrelevant to this afd and should be discussed at the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 14 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Girls Academy

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

Article created by a now blocked paid editor. Fails WP:ORG. The Banner talk 02:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 02:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was not able to find independent, reliable sources to get the school to meet WP:GNG standards. Fails WP:ORG. Orville1974 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable, independent sources with which to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a school per se, but rather a treatment program with an education component. Fails WP:ORG by a mile and any exceptions we may afford schools do not apply. John from Idegon (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I noted when looking for coverage that this source describes it as "a 15-month long residential program for girls ages 13 to 17". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cordless Larry....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merely a special needs primary school. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - exactly per John from Idegon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 7 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton report

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

cat=I Nomopbs (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons I nominate for deletion

I think editing the Clifton report article to fix its shortcomings is a lost cause for the reason I express below:

The Clifton report article really looks like it was created as an attempt to write about Merritt Clifton without running afoul of biographies of living persons policy. Though it is titled as if it's about a newsletter, when you read it, it's like a history of M. Clifton activities across the decades.
A google search for "clifton report" brings up nothing to indicate it is something being done in present time, and neither does a search of www.animals24-7.org come up with any hits for "clifton report". The wiki article makes it sound like it's currently being done/published. Okay, maybe they forgot to put in an end date. However, a google search shows that the "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada" report (also mentioned in the article) may have stopped being done (or published) around 2007, but this article was created in 2011.[38] So what gives?
The wiki article says the Clifton Report is published by Animal People, Inc., but a search of Animal People, Inc.'s website for "merritt clifton" only finds two articles where he is mentioned, but is not an editor or author there. So that's past tense. And there are no hits for "clifton report", either.
Though the wiki article for Animal People, Inc. says it was founded in 1992, there are references in Clifton Report mentioning 1979 and 1982, which are both over a decade before the formation of the alleged publisher of the paper. Again, is this an article about Merritt Clifton or the Clifton Report?
I already removed the "Criticism" section because it was all about Merritt Clifton and his current activities at Animals 24/7, which is NOT what the "Clifton Report" article was about. (Just more evidence that the purpose of the page was to get around WP:BLP, or at least NOT about the Clifton Report.)
I gave up editing the page in favor of just putting my findings here on the Talk page and nominating the article for deletion instead.
As an afterthought, I attempted to get further information by sending an email to Merritt Clifton through his current website. The answer I received was almost as confusing as the Clifton report article is. What I was able to glean was the "Clifton Report" was a name coined by media to VARIOUS reports by Clifton, and never to any non-Clifton reports published after Clifton left Animal People, Inc., and none were ever named "Clifton Report" by Clifton himself (it was the media's name for something, or several somethings). I did not get any clarification whether or not any of the several reports mentioned in the current Clifton Report article were ever dubbed "Clifton Report" by media or whether it was other reports named thusly.

Anyway, since it was never the name of a report, and the article is ridiculously confusing and really about a man, not a report, I nominate it for deletion on the grounds that it cannot be fixed. It's better to start over from scratch if someone really wants to write about any of these topics or reports. -- Nomopbs (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daffydavid, PearlSt82, Woodlandpath, Derek R Bullamore, Dwanyewest, and MarnetteD: Article nominated for deletion. Tagging the creator, all editors who edited this article in the last 12 months, and those who posted on the Talk page. Nomopbs (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I also could not find anything about this report, and I would go so far as to further question the notability of Animal People, the publishers of the report, itself. Comment: This is the most thorough nomination for an article I've seen, let alone for one whose subject's lack of notability is so non-contentious. Props. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. Animal People or a bio of Merritt Clifton might pass GNG with more sourcing, but this specific report certainly is not notable enough. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:43, 9 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Boys Academy

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

Article created by a now blocked paid editor. Fails WP:ORG. The Banner talk 02:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 02:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a bit of info out there (around 6 websites), but it's all self-sourced or promotional, related-party stuff. I wasn't able to find independent, reliable sources to get the subject to meet WP:GNG standards. Fails WP:ORG. Orville1974 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a school per se, but rather a treatment program with an education component. Fails WP:ORG by a mile and any exceptions we may afford schools do not apply. John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot believe a special school (or treatment centre) with just 15 pupils is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Eligible for deletion on UPE grounds alone but also not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 7 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Mountain Academy

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

Article created by a now blocked paid editor. Fails WP:ORG. The Banner talk 02:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 02:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pulling sources now, but it appears ~~this subject meets WP:GNG~~. Orville1974 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources were a mention of a tenuous connection between this school and a school that's now closed (Kidnapped for Christ). That school's building was purchased by the current subject of the article, but the current subject doesn't appear to reach WP:GNG. Here are the sources I found: Newsweek^[2] and this less reliable one^[3]

References

^ "«Рок-корону-2009» получила группа «Без билета»" [beZ bileta received the “Rock Crown 2009”]. naviny.by (in Russian). BelaPAN. 2010-03-05. Archived from the original on 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2019-06-10.
^ EDT, Zoë Schlanger On 7/10/14 at 12:42 PM (2014-07-10). "Where American Teens were Abused in the Name of God". Newsweek. Retrieved 2019-06-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Sugiuchi, Deirdre (2016-11-07). "Suffer the Little Children: Mike Pence's Disturbing Connections to the Teen Treatment Industry". Medium. Retrieved 2019-06-06.

Orville1974 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a school per se, but rather a treatment program with an education component. Fails WP:ORG by a mile and any exceptions we may afford schools do not apply. John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The Newsweek article identified by another contributor suggests that this is notorious. On the other hand, I suspect there are ATTACK and perhaps COATHANGER elements to this. I would be happier if there was an article on Crosswinds (not listed inCrosswinds (disambiguation)) the Indiana organisation that runs it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - exactly per John from Idegon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to end hand waving and special exceptions for schools and make people actually produce the sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G11 by Athaenara (non-admin closure) 94rain ^Talk 08:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Failano Francisco

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

No evidence of notability, and no sources provided. Fails WP:V UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication of importance. Blumpf (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a new-hire publicity release of someone not notable. No citations. -- Nomopbs (talk) 02:39, 6 June 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 but move to Indigenous cuisine. A move is an unusual close for an AFD, so an explanation is in order. The key arguments by the delete camp are that the exact word string "endemic gastronomy" is essentially undocumented and hasn't gained much traction, and is perhaps also a bit promotional. The key arguments by the keep camp are that the underlying concept is covered in reliable sources and should be preserved in some way. Since the main problem flagged by the deletes is the name and the main point flagged by the keeps is the content, a rename of the article seems like a reasonable move to satisfy all concerns and points raised here. Some editors have proposed or "tolerate" a move to the title "indigenous cuisine". If people think a different title is appropriate or that the content could be copied elsewhere, they can start move, merge etc. discussions as appropriate. Some cleanup of the article may also be in order but that can be done outside of the AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic gastronomy

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

This seems to be a term used by a single upmarket restaurant and I do not think that it has any wider currency. TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete No book hits, 9 Ghits, one rather dubious Gscholar hit. There's simply nothing to work with beyond the definition which is obvious anyway. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found a couple other places using the phrase but all in a promotional way. This might become a real thing and if so we can expect reliable sources to cover it, but for now TOOSOON given the lack of sources which satisfy GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Well-intentioned creator, subject seems quite likely to become a thing. Too soon, but perfect for userfying so the editor can add to it as other sources appear, maybe move to article space in a year or so. --valereee (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Changing to Keep as I've found and added multiple sources for "Indigenouse cuisine" and "Contemporary indigenouse cuisine," the former an overlapping concept and the latter an identical concept to "Endemic gastronomy." --valereee (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough articles on the internet where it is reported that although the concept was formed in a restaurant (such as the currywurst in Berlin, Germany), it is being replicated in others. The fact that an article is promotional within the gastronomy does not mean that it is advertising. It is like articles on the Internet about molecular gastronomy or other types of cuisine. If the fact that it has been recognized by an international award of its own category is not enough (see the respective reference), the fact that it is a new concept, does it not encyclopedic? --Igallards7 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.191.3.29 (talk) [reply]

The point is, nobody seems to call it that, so there's really nothing we can say about it that comes from reliable sources. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge We have several articles of a similar kind, including local food, regional cuisine, food heritage, national dish and native cuisine of Hawaii. The idea seems clear enough and deletion is not appropriate per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Valereee summed up my thoughts exactly. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON, based on the sources that are available now, but userfying it to allow the creator to improve on the article as more sources become available before submitting it back to article space seems fair. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment People really need to look this over further. I'm still getting next to no hits the the phrase itself; when I switch to the phrase actually used by Guzmán (endemic cuisine) I get more hits, but again all the book hits appear to be incidental, obvious juxtapositions of the two words, and do not refer to Guzmán's notion. There is no reason to make up a term that even the supposed inventor doesn't use, and given that the idea seems to have no traction, the most I can see is a redirect from the actual term to regional cuisine, and even that is questionable. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Good idea to try alternate search terms! There are actually multiple hits on 'Indigenous cuisine'! It seems to be used primarily in the Americas, but unless someone here objects to it as an alternate term for this subject, I'll add those sources in? --valereee (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found several sources on the matter, 139 ghits when the phrase is quoted. I honestly would propose that the article be moved to "indigenous cuisine", as the current title is needlessly pedantic. 139 ghits when "endemic gastronomy" is quoted, while there are "61,000" ghits for "indigenous cuisine" quoted. If the terms are truly synonymous, then it should be moved to the title where it is more commonly referred to. Clearly AGF regardless of outcome, but there are enough sources to work with. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to say that this whole discussion strikes me as somewhat incoherent. First of all, 'Indigenous cuisine' is cultural (as in the culture of indigenous peoples, which in Canada for example, might be expressed as 'First Nations' people). It's not about cooking with foods from a place. And using 'endemic' to describe a style of cooking isn't exactly complimentary. Someone probably mistranslated something (or needed a better translation beforehand, or a word has different implications in a different language). A recalibration is in order and this should be deleted with extreme prejudice. But I'll read the sources and make a proper vote later. Regards, ogenstein (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - While the word 'endemic' has a couple of meanings, it is commonly used to describe a disease or condition: From Oxford: "(of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area: complacency is endemic in industry today."

Putting aside whether we should be endeavouring to associate this with cultural groups and their food preparation, the marketing people who thought it up were eventually educated and no longer wish to use it to describe the restaurant they were pushing. This is likely why you didn't finding the term spreading. It's not wikipedia's place to provide fuel to marketing campaigns, especially when they're so blatently promotional in nature, e.g. a travel magazine, restaurant blog. Even worse, both were just quoting the chef so these sources are not valid for creating a page, let alone redirecting another page to it. All other uses of 'endemic' on the azureazure site are unrelated to a style of cooking and fall into the second definition, "(of a plant or animal) native or restricted to a certain place: a marsupial endemic to north-eastern Australia".

This whole article is trying to piggyback on (or coopt really) something which actually exists - indigenous cuisine. All of the other references have nothing to do with this page. Both of the references that do exist restrict it to the single restaurant. So if you wish to write about that restaurant or chef in particular, then have at it, but the term should not be used for any general purpose. Those two references are also nothing except WP:PROMOTION and wikipedia shouldn't be an adjunct to misguided marketers.

This page is a case of credulity run amok. And I just noticed that 'indigenous cuisine' actually redirects to this mess? So let me rephrase what I wrote above. This article coopts something which already exists. I hope I haven't been too brusque here and I assume good faith but it needs to be fixed. WP:SALT ogenstein (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My apologies, apparently the restaurant in question does still exist. My failed attempts to visit the site must have been a temporary issue so I have removed that comment. ogenstein (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should also add that on the restaurant site, the chef refers to cooking with produce that is endemic to Chile, which I have no issue with, or on the cocinacaribe.com page which comments on distinguishing between endemic and introduced produce. Additionally, there may be a language issue with terms such as 'endémico', 'producto' and 'gastronomía' not being used identically as the similar words in English. ogenstein (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No objection whatsoever to moving page to "Indigenous cuisine". This is clearly a thing, and if this is the wrong title, let's move it to the correct title. --valereee (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I have no objection to an article on indigenous cuisine, that would be good, but the term has been shoehorned into this article as a supposed synonym to try to save it. The result is an irretrievable mess. As far as I can see, the promotional term endemic gastronomy does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in an article on indigenous cuisine. SpinningSpark 18:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, you don't think we can just move this to Indigenous cuisine and fix it? I'm open to deleting and starting over, but if it just needs to be indigenous cuisine it seems like a move would be the first step? --valereee (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first step is to delete with extreme prejudice the idea that an article on indigenous cuisine could be started with a discussion of one establishment's promotional buzzword that may only be tangentially related to the subject. I agree with Mothman; an article on indigenous cuisine should not have "endemic gastronomy" either in its text or its history. SpinningSpark 17:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was no consensus two weeks ago, and two relists haven't resulted in any further input. Michig (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Crazy Down Under

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

no evidence of being noteworthy for a stand-alone article MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify Although the podcast does have some significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources, none of the sources comes from a place far away from its location, which is Australia. Draftifying the article could be a more feasible option since author is still active. INeedSupport ^:3 13:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search doesn't bring any sources that talks about the podcast. INeedSupport ^:3 13:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've tried to improve and clean up this article, since it's definitely borderline, but there is some coverage, and seems noteworthy enough in a niche market. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no clear discernible consensus here with a keep, a delete or draftify, and the the nom's automatic !vote of delete... More discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:47, 12 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Woodner Company

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the references in the article are URL's which are no longer valid, but from looking at the titles, they're all mostly WP:PRIMARY or not WP:RS. My own searching came up with more of the same; mentions of routine financial transactions and the like, but nothing which talks about the company in the sense that WP:NCORP requires.

I have no idea what's up with the listings of all the court cases. Most of that was added by User:Freebee6713, a hit-and-run WP:SPA who has not been heard from since. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough coverage of the company and its operations in reliable sources. The dead links are annoying but still contribute to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ageed that there is enough coverage of the company in reliable sources. Definitely notable.- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've summarized the references in the article. Not a single one meets the requirements laid out in WP:NCORP. I've skipped the dead links, since it's impossible to evaluate them. See WP:THREE.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
NYTimes	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Obituary, not about the company
Washington City Paper	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Local coverage of a tenant
Downtown DC	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Doesn't mention the company
Evening Star Building	N	N	N	N	N	Promotional web site
Justica US Law	N	Y	Y	N	N	Routine court filing
Washington Post	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Passing mention
US Courts	N	Y	Y	N	N	Routine court filing
Total qualifying sources					0	Fails WP:NCORP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs work for sure. Seems to be a part of the collection of page all created on the same day: Ian Woodner, Jonathan Woodner and itself Jonathan Woodner Company, with adjunct page Andrea Woodner created much later. I read enough information on the people pages to understand why the company page might be of interest. -- Nomopbs (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per table. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To add to the table, one of the dead articles is from The Cincinatti Enquirer, but it also only gives passing reference to Woodner. The Keep comments assert that the subject is notable, yet RoySmith exhaustively describes why the current sources do not meet notability guidelines. Moreover, I can find nothing outside of these citations that gives anything more than passing reference to the company. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the excellent analysis provided in the table above. I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Reasons such as "might be of interest" and0 "enough coverage in reliable sources" are not enough - the references must also be independent as per WP:ORGIND in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the table above, I could not find a single decent quality RS of which this company was the principal subject; zero WP:SIGCOV, and a fail of WP:NCORP. If no material RS wanted to cover this company, why should WP? We end up in a situation where its WP article was the major source of its notability. There is no WP:PRESERVE here, and there are other articles on the family that can cover it. Company is not notable enough to have it's own standalone WP article I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 15:05, 14 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProProfs

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

no real in depth coverage, just the WP:MILL mentions, rehashed press releases, etc... Praxidicae (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found the company as one of the innovative in the e-learning area. It is very practical, many companies use their products. Regarding the links - I found it with only one link and no deletion notice for a couple of years with the templates requests to improve the article. After I added 9 more to confirm, we have deletion notice, this is really weird, and prejudiced in my opinion. I also mention that I'm working on additional links (I already have 3, one from Mashable and 2 more from technical websites) to add and looking for more. Can you, for at least to remove it from the Deletion List? I can show you a hundred of other companies which have no notability whatsoever and one-two links, yet they are on Wikipedia somehow. RossK 05:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

I've started a discussion to determine whether The Next Web (RSP entry) article "Online assessment and training platform ProProfs passes 1 million registered content-makers" counts toward ProProfs's notability on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Next Web for ProProfs. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of more links for the article - link 2 (Mashable) and 8 (Ceoworld Magazine) and here in trhe information about the website traffic from two reliable sources:

Both of these websites indicate that ProProfs has a significant amount of traffic and a lot of viewers which may mean they do have a lot of users. RossK 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

I just started to check one by one the other US software companies, checking on how to improve Notability and actually found that the companies had a few links or the links of the same quality like ProProfs:

This one has barely any links whatsoever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qitera

This one promotes its products:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_Online_Knowledge,_Inc.

This link has only technical documentation (Do I need to find and provide it?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_R

Can anyone explain me what is the difference and how ProProfs is worse in comparison with other companies? RossK 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

The existence of other articles on subjects that might not be notable is not a valid argument for keeping this article. You're welcome to add reliable sources to other articles, or nominate them for deletion if they don't meet the notability guidelines. — Newslinger talk 21:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. I'll defer to other editors. Analysis of sources:
1. ProProfs: Not independent. Company's own website.
2. Mashable: Not significant. Too short.
3. KillerStartups: Not independent. Interview with company founder with no additional analysis.
4. GetApp: Not independent. Owned and operated by Gartner Digital Markets, a paid listing service.
5. Training: Promotional, but possibly acceptable.
6. The Next Web: Promotional. Routine coverage tied to a company metric (registered users) doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH.
7. Cision: Not independent. Press release.
8. The Herald-Dispatch: Acceptable, although local.
9. Blogspot: Not reliable.
10. CEOWORLD magazine: Not significant. Too short.
11. The Next Web: Duplicate of #6.
12. Ventureburn: Not significant. Passing mention in listicle.
  — Newslinger talk 22:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the references mentioned above would work for WP:ORGCRIT other than possibly Herald Dispatch but even that one likely wouldn't fly. The rest are your run-of-the-mill blogs. There is nothing I could find in a search that would satisfy WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added two new links of Alex Rank(quite a notable source of website traffic) and Similar Web just to show the substantial and stable traffic of the company for this and the previous years. I haven't seen any foul game or tricking as statistics of the traffic websites are stable and technical. It demonstrates that the company is indeed popular. So, in Alexa rating, the company has a global rating of 4122 and 2142 in the USA which is rather impressive taking into consideration we have tens millions of websites. I propose to leave the page as it for now until some more information can be found and verified. Ross kramerov

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross kramerov: Please take some time to read over Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations. Metrics like Alexa ranks don't make a difference in determining whether a topic qualifies for an article. However, if you can find more independent reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, you'll have a much stronger argument for keeping the article. — Newslinger talk 03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, would think with 250+ employees (according to article) this company would have come to the attention of useable sources (the sources at present are not), doesn't appear to have, so delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Newslinger's analysis and my own reading of the article, which comes close to WP:G11 material. Suggest that User:Brrainstormerr/sandbox/ProProfs also be deleted; it's a (blanked) copy of this. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 14 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet Ka Dum

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

No coverage in WP:RS whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Clearly a television show that exists in Pakistan. bd2412 T 19:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the recent !vote, this is no longer an uncontested PROD and more discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412. This is a Pakistan based television show with signs of notability. Cleanup will improve the article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleaned up and replaced dead links with working ones. Added 2 major newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SexMex

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

No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - No meaningful coverage after going through several pages of google results. Some passing references, as in some person had mentioned working with them while discussing something else, or the name came up while discussing an expo, but nothing actually about the site. ogenstein (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The content seems like it should be merged into an article about its founder, Fernando Deira.[39][40][41][42] [43] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While not optimal to my mind, this would be preferable to 'keep' (assuming the founder passes muster for which I have no opinion on at this time). ogenstein (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing pretty significant here. Fails WP:GNG. Camron6598 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Not only is there a lack of coverage but the page itself lacks substance. If you truly believe it deserves a place here, write a better page. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:09, 6 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Means TV

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

Not notable enough. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company does not currently have the kind of coverage which suggests notability under NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Means TV (formerly Means of Production)is a highly notable media organization whose film-making helped propel AOC to prominence. Received significant coverage at a national level, including CNN (here), Filmmaker Magazine (here), Detroit Free Press (here), The New York Times (here), The Washington Post (here), Huffington Post (here), MSNBC (video embedded here), Ad week (here), and Los Angeles Times (here). Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are either mentions-in-passing, or rely on announcements/quotations/interviews with connected sources, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Did you review the sources collected above? Just not sure how these sources, e.g. this, could be considered to not constitute significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 I reviewed all the sources including the ones above. Not only do sources have to be in-depth/significant but they also must be independent in terms of author *and* content. The Filmmaker source you linked to for instance relies on an interview with the founders and is therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND. From the guidelines: "in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." There is nothing in that article that is not attributable to words from the founders' mouths. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaker (magazine) is the leading publication in the world of independent film-making. It is clearly a reliable and independent source. The fact that the story includes (but is not limited to) quotes does not diminish its independence. And that is just one example of the national coverage given to this organization. Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt its a great independent magazine but the content must also be independent. You say that the story include (but is not limited to) quotes and that this doesn't diminish its independence. Are we reading the same article? That vast majority of the story is made up of quotes from either Hayes or Burton. Can you point to any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking (about the company) that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject within that article? I'm left with statements/comments on their ad with nothing about the company. Statements like "Means of Production’s ideologically chiseled, disarmingly human ad for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dropped a month later, and its nearly one million viral views have helped launch the career of one of the left’s rising stars" and most of the second last paragraph which equally discusses their second ad. Nothing about the company. This simply doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at what appeared to be the WP:THREE best sources listed above; LA Times, NY Times, and Wash Post. All where just passing mentions in articles fundamentally about the use of viral videos in political campaigns, not the company that made one of them. Fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 14 June 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. Neither of the keep comments give any policy-based reasons to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bekaaboo

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

Previously speedy deleted as G11. It looks as if the content has been improved a bit so it is less obviously promotional, but there is still a fundamental notability problem. Neither the sources in the article nor any others I can find are sufficiently reliable and independent - all coverage is clear PR blurb on industry websites. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I feel (and I might be wrong), that it should be kept and it might be too soon to delete this. It does have two cast members who are notable themselves. Of course, the tv series can not inherit their notability but still, I think the page about such tv series should be at an encyclopedia. Exploreandwrite (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I feel (and I might be wrong) the page should not be deleted as it has all the necessary information required and it should be given explaination that why this page must not be on Wikipedia. Just because it was previously deleted doesn't qualify that this page should also be deleted.Noormohammed satya (talk)
Delete. The sources present are all paid press, press releases, or otherwise useless for determining notability. Neither Explore or Satya's !votes make any sense from a policy standpoint either. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While I believe the digital hash might scrape in, I don't think any of the sources given, or a couple of other actual reviews (vs reviews of the trailer) are of sufficient reliability/independence to qualify. I'd specifically like to note that Exploreandwrite's !vote seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. @Noormohammed: - could you clarify which particular sources demonstrate notability is established? WP:NTV is rather more vague than WP:NFILM, but reliable sources are viewed as important, and it seems somewhat similar to GNG. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:20, 14 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictionmania

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

No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To start out, the two main sources in the article consist of a single footnote in one article in Archives of Sexual Behavior (see the bottom right corner of the sixth page) and a 2-page mention in a semi-obscure book (in exactly what capacity, I don't know). Upon further digging, I can find a mention here very briefly in a less obscure book, and a less brief mention in a book by the same author (seemingly the same book in a different language) – neither of which seem to discuss the site itself in any meaningful capacity, as well as what appears to be tenuous, passing mentions of the site in a handful of academic papers. Comment: As an aside, the author of that aforementioned semi-obscure book has a Wikipedia article that should probably also end up here someday due to their ostensible failure of WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NWEB as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 13 June 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. With respect to the sole deletion rationale, "is not encyclopedic" is not an argument that a policy or guideline is violated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Agony

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

Limited coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How much WP:BEFORE have you been doing? [44] from Contemporary Visual Arts & Culture, Camera_Obscura (journal) [45], Revista Crítica Cultural [46], Creative Loafing Tampa [47] Passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the links above provided above by Morbidthoughts there are more than enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Project Nike. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nike-Recruit

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

~~No third party coverage of topic.~~Suggest to merge all Nike rockets to a single article as there is not enough source to sustain individual articles for all of them. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Tyw7: Googling the topic shows several sources that you could use to expand the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel, do you bother to look at the article? It just a list of figures. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge: We can do better than a bunch of dictionary entries. Otr500 (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Project Nike. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Viper Dart. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nike-Viper

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

~~No third party coverage of topic.~~Suggest to merge all Nike rockets to a single article as there is not enough source to sustain individual articles for all of them. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Viper Dart. Some information here (not sure if RS) and a brief mention here, but not enough for an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Viper Dart, looking at the sources listed above it therefore doesn't appear to be sufficent information to warrant an article. We can easily merge the couple lines into Viper Dart. 10:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs)

That too only has a single source. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7, that's not relevant. I advised merging (and redirect) to Viper Dart because Nike-Viper is a sub-rocket of Viper Dart. If Viper Dart needs to be deleted as well then we can deal with that later. SSSB (talk) 11:23, 13 June 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 later arguments to keep are substantial enough and have not been rebutted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those firmly rooted in knowledge

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Yes, you will find some search results on google, but that's becuase Quranic verses get cited in religious books all the time. But that doesn't make this notable as an encyclopedic entry. Former AFD failed short of deletion due to lack of participation. You will find tonnes of results for other Quranic terms like "those who believe", "those who disbelieve" on google books. That doesn't make any of those phrases notable for an article here, nor it does to this one. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could not find reliable sources discussing this concept in detail. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as a Muslim I don't think this particular subject deserves an individual page. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to barely pass notability with Neuwirth and Bar-Asher, and barely notable is still notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It took just a few seconds to find some detailed discussion of the phrase and its significance which is described as a "matter of great dispute". Maybe it would fit best in some larger page about Islamic theology and the Sunni/Shia schism but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ulemas (علماء‎) are, almost by definition, "those firmly rooted in knowledge"(TFRIK). The root of the word is the same as that for knowledge (علم). The role of ulemas is clearly essential in Islam and the issue of their qualifications and role is a crucial one. The function of TFRIK is also a major marker of Shi'a and Sunni difference, with far reaching political implications. Since the issue is crucial, it gets hotly and massively debated. The discussion revolves essentially around the exegesis (Tafsir) of the phrase TFRIK. I don't know how WP rules are to be applied in this case , but the notability of the topic, i.e. of the actual meaning of this Quranic phrase in Islam, should be clear. 188.216.192.3 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is a Quranic term which has theoligical importance. It differs with Ulemas .--Seyyed(t-c) 01:58, 11 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danai Koutra

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either not WP:INDEPENDENT, having been published by her employers, UC Berkeley and University of Michigan, or to articles about awards that appear to fall short of what is required by WP:NACADEMIC. One of the links, to the Mathematics Genealogy Project, isn't even about the subject, it's about someone named Jure Leskovec. None of the other criteria in WP:NACADEMIC appears to be satisfied. The subject is an assistant professor, not a full professor, she does not hold a named chair, she's not been elected to "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society", and her profile on Google Scholar indicates only 2141 citations, far short of "significant impact". Searching with Google, I was unable to find any suitable sources to establish notability. It's clear this is a smart academic who may at some point become notable but the evidence is not there yet. Msnicki (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. GS profile on GS is ~~quite~~ just enough to pass WP:Prof#C1, ~~particularly for pure math~~ in computer science (maybe). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

But her publications are in computer science, not pure math. And 2147 citations and an H-index of 22 are not big numbers in computer science. Her most-cited paper has only 518 citations; again, not a big number in CS. Impressive numbers start at around 10K citations, an H-index of about 40 and a paper with around 2000 citations. Here, for comparison, are just a few of the Google Scholar profiles of of her colleagues in the same department, all of whom swamp her: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. If we accept your argument, pretty nearly every member of the entire department would be considered notable. Msnicki (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Danai Koutra has made significant contributions in graph mining and summarization. She is highly regarded in her field: she is the recipient of the prestigious NSF CAREER award; also an ARO Young Investigator award. Number of citations is comparable to other full professors in the same department (e.g., [55], [56]), and much higher than other computer scientists on Wikipedia (e.g., Michael_Pound, Florian_Neukart) --Akatuma (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC) — Akatuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not obvious that any of these four other computer scientists are notable. The two colleagues at Michigan that you've identified are at the bottom of the entire department in terms of citations and, so far as I know, have never been proposed as notable nor do I believe they are notable. The two BLPs you cite lack the usual multiple independent RS we usually expect as evidence of notability. And while the NSF award is labeled a "career" award, it's not actually in recognition of achievements but intended to support early career development. Same with Young Investigator Award. Both of these recognize potential, not achievement. (I conceded in my nomination that she has the former, just not the latter.) At best, you're offering an argument that amounts to WP:WHATABOUTX or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't, in the case of her two colleagues at Michigan). This is not a compelling argument at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two colleagues at Michigan are full professors, who have been promoted to this rank because of their notability. Such promotions are done based on a strong record of scholarly achievement, and based on letters from the research community that demonstrate impact and international stature. Both the NSF CAREER award and the Young Investigator Award are highly selective, so while they indeed provide financial support, they are a recognition of the recipient's achievements. Akatuma (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find nothing that shows the subject meets any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC (note: the "prestigious" award mentioned in the article is an award from the NSF for junior faculty); the subject also seems to fail to meet WP:GNG based on searching I've done. Also worth noting that the 'Media' section has three articles, all of which give Koutra a mere passing mention. Comment: This article reeks of COI editing (like the 'Media' section), which can further be seen in its creator's edit history (all of the articles have to do with CS professors at the University of Michigan). In general, this article feels like WP:MASK. Those other articles, I would argue, should be looked into as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC, taking into account comments above as to what would be in enough for a computer scientist, and clearly fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NACADEMIC. Not sufficient depth-of-coverage for WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Α run-of-the-mill academic (so far) as shown above by user TheTechnician27. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. I think "run-of-the-mill" is far too harsh: she's on track to be a strong performer, but she's not quite there yet. More to the point, we don't have much to say about her yet beyond some promotional links in the media section. It's not the citation numbers; those vary by area within computer science and in some areas those would be good numbers for full professors, so it's difficult to judge by that. But all of her heavily-cited work is student work with multiple authors; she's only had four years after her Ph.D. and hasn't had time to build a track record independent of her advisor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rada Mihalcea is another BLP that needs to be looked at by experts, although in this case citations are high. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

[1] "«Рок-корону-2009» получила группа «Без билета»" [beZ bileta received the “Rock Crown 2009”]. naviny.by (in Russian). BelaPAN. 2010-03-05. Archived from the original on 2019-06-10. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

[2] EDT, Zoë Schlanger On 7/10/14 at 12:42 PM (2014-07-10). "Where American Teens were Abused in the Name of God". Newsweek. Retrieved 2019-06-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[3] Sugiuchi, Deirdre (2016-11-07). "Suffer the Little Children: Mike Pence's Disturbing Connections to the Teen Treatment Industry". Medium. Retrieved 2019-06-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]