Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Writer's Digest Short Story Contest[edit]

Writer's Digest Short Story Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Three years, two edits, one sentence. Suggest merge what little there is into Writer's Digest. HalJor (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Zachary Santangelo[edit]

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

Fails WP:Pornbio. There's not much assertion of notability here either and the sourcing isn't very good either. AniMate 03:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Barrio Canlubang[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this topic obviously passes WP:NGEO. The relevant portion (WP:GEOLAND) of that guidelines says the notability of neighborhoods should be considered on a case by case basis and need "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources", which is clearly not the case with the current state of the article. If you are aware of reliable sources that fit that criteria, please add them to the article. If you are unable to do so, I think the page should be deleted. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Workato[edit]

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

Non-notable platform sourced only to funding/PR and WP:BEFORE reveals a bunch of random passing mentions and nothing in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Eir Spiders[edit]

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

Not notable under any name they're currently or previously known under. No coverage, barely even passing mentions. Fails GNG, NEVENT, NCOVERAGE. Praxidicae (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article subject has been through AfD twice before. Once closely following its creation in 2008 (result was 'keep'). And once close to a year ago in 2017 (result was 'no consensus'). While I did not participate in the first AfD discussion (2008), I did participate in the latter (2017). As nothing seems to have changed since then, my recommendation remains the same. Keep. (Based on the fact that, while much of the coverage is trivial, self-published or promotional in tone, there does seem to be enough passable independent coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV). Guliolopez (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
An AFD from ten years ago doesn't really mean much and I don't see any changes from then to now, either. The AFD itself wasn't even strong on the keep side and policies and inclusion criteria have been more fine tuned since that time. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Praxidicae. Thanks for your note. I wasn't saying that the outcome discussions should somehow stand (the 'gospel according to Wikipedia past') :) Just highlighting that the discussions had occurred (something that wasn't perhaps immediately obvious from the original nom template). And that, perhaps, a number of WP:BEFORE efforts might be covered in those previous discussions. (Like a list and link of previously identified coverage points/etc). Personally I'm not wedded to the outcome of either AfD. As noted by Smallbones, the outcome of the first AfD was almost analagous to a "merge/redirect" outcome. Except that no target was identified. If the outcome here is "keep/redirect the title / merge the content" then I'd advocate the Business and Finance article as a target. And would assist with it. (Certainly, after 10 years, if the content hasn't been expanded beyond a few sentences, then that might support an argument for merge/redirect. However, while length is a consideration in a merge discussion, it isn't typically relevant in an AfD review). Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment/question. Actually, Praxidicae, as I have you, can I ask you two quick and genuine questions about the nom?
  1. In the nom you suggest that the subject fails NEVENT and NCOVERAGE. While I'm personally unsure of the the applicability of NEVENT to this particular subject, which criteria are you referring to by the the shorthand "NCOVERAGE". Is it WP:SIGCOV?
  2. In the nom you suggest that there is "no coverage" and "barely even passing mentions" of the subject (in reliable sources). In honesty I am a little confused by this argument specifically. The subject is the primary topic of more than a few reliable (print) publications - that have at least national reach. Like the Irish Independent and Irish Times. And also the primary topic of coverage in other seemingly reliable (online) outlets. Like SiliconRepublic and IrishTechNews. A question could perhaps be asked about the triggers for this type of coverage (some of it could perhaps be characterised as "press releases as journalism", and hence perhaps a claim could be made on its "independence"). I don't think, however, that this type of coverage can be characterised as "nonexistent" or "a passing mention".
As before, personally I'm not seeing the argument for deletion. (As there does seem to be enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV). But, other contributors might be interested to hear more detail on the argument (and the policies on which those arguments are based). Guliolopez (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - 3 short paragraphs can be said about this, but that doesn't mean it's notable. One ref is about a winner of the prize - these type of articles are usually considered promotional (for the winner) so should not be considered a reliable source. Two other refs are definitely promotional and published by the Irish Independent which is a sponsor of the prize. The article starting "The Queen of Ireland, Panti Bliss, ..." is interesting, but obviously not reliable. No other contenders for independent (small i) reliable sources. My review of the previous AfDs - well, either could have been closed as delete or merge. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - meets WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on how exactly it meets GNG and what those sources are? Praxidicae (talk) 10:43 am, Today (UTC−5)
  • no need for an editor to so, the closing admin will, though, consider the lack of Justification and evidence offered. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any significant coverage other than maybe the quasi-promotional independent article. A lot of mentions about how "we were nominated!." Fails WP:GNG, and if WP:NORG applies to award events? that as well. SportingFlyer talk 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Finney[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR. I attempted to find sources for the various films it was claimed she performed in in addition to Families, but was unable. Any references that appear to be out there lack sufficient depth and merely confirm that she is an actress. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Church of the Truly Warped[edit]

Church of the Truly Warped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM with insufficient mention or sourcing available for a suitable redirect/merger with the artist (Charged GBH). TheSandDoctor Talk 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC); struck/updated 07:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge/redirect to Charged GBH. There's an Allmusic review ([1]), a group review from Record Collector ([2]), and a few other pieces of very brief coverage online ([3], [4], [5], [6]), likely more in print from the time of the album's original release, but as it stands this coverage could perhaps be summarised briefly in the article on the band and this redirected there. Why we would need a quantity of coverage to have a redirect is a mystery to me. --Michig (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Michig: Me too. What I meant was that I didn't see enough on the album in the band's article for a redirect to make sense for readers. That said, I see what you mean and would not be opposed to a merge/redirect combo. I have struck that part of the nomination as I no longer agree with it myself. --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Carotta[edit]

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

I don't believe that this subject is notable. Alot of puff pieces. Alot of dead links. ManWithDrink (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Girls Under Glass[edit]

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

No significant coverage found for this band per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)