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 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.
Procedural nomination on behalf of
73.55.210.84 (
talk·contribs). Their PROD concern (before it was contested) was as follows:
Subject is a non-notable deceased individual. Page appears to be
Wikipedia:Fancruft with no sourcing to notability. Page has remained disputed since 2013. Was contested here by
Biwom with the following rationale: unPRODing "the USA Today and New York Times bestselling author of over 300 books" with "245,357 library holdings".
Note complete lack of sourcing for article - only sources are author's website, author's niece's / ghostwriter's website after his death, and a pay-to-enter "who's who" website entry for the author's niece. Author is simply not notable enough to have been covered by ANY reliable source, as shown by PROD-remover's inability to source their claim. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.55.210.84 (
talk)
20:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional article of a center in Seoul that offers Korean language and driver license classes to foreigners. Does not meet the standards of
WP:ORG, and does not satisfy
WP:GNG1l2l3k (
talk)
16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no inherent notability for this kind of things, and a brief news article doesn't make it pass the GNG. It seems the author put this up as a public service, which is nice, but that's not what we're here for.
Drmies (
talk)
16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The references are all either
primary source directory entries or unreliable sources, not
reliable source coverage in real media, but nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I'm not thinking so much an OR violation as a
WP:SYNTH one; there seems to be very little here by way of sources describing these things as broadly perceived regional symbols. Who genuinely thinks that "King Philip's Seat" or St. Joseph are "symbols" of New England?
Ravenswing 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - if it wasn't even notable enough to be a category then there's not even a debate to be had here; strongest possible delete
Spiderone19:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Has one top tier fight, a loss, and it requires
WP:CRYSTALBALL to think he'll get two more. No significant independent coverage, but no objection to the article being recreated if he has three top tier MMA fights.
Sandals1 (
talk)
19:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Has only 1 top tier MMA fight, a loss, and so fails
WP:NMMA. The article has no references and my own search only found routine sports reporting. That loss is why this case is different from that of Damir Ismagulov, who is also up for an AfD discussion but won his only UFC fight earlier this month. It's impossible to know if Turner will get 2 more top tier fights, so right now it's
WP:TOOSOON for his article.
Papaursa (
talk)
21:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
SkyGazer 512, well it doesn't talk about her. The focus of the article seems to be the series rather than the actress. Heck, she only appears once in the article. Also 2 articles doesn't make it "significant coverage" as needed by GNG. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me)
19:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Significant coverage doesn't mean a set number of sources, GNG just states that it needs to be more than one. I could see what you mean about the article I linked, as you're right that it isn't necessarily the main topic of the article; however, I would say there's enough for the purposes of GNG and believe it barely scrapes though the "significant" criterion. I'm not really sure what you mean by "she only appears once in the article," as it seems to mention several different facts about her several times throughout the article (try searching for Kirk instead of simply Christina Kirk).--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time?21:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: she did had some nontrivial roles and there were more than one article on her in the very mainstream newspapers. Good enough for me as far as the notability is concerned. Note also the guideline is not a policy. —
Taku (
talk)
10:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Keep He meets
WP:NACADEMIC, #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". He is a member of the Russian Academy of Arts
[1]. The article could certainly be improved, and the much longer Russian Wikipedia article could be a useful source - it has multiple references.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
13:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Still notable even if he doesn't meet
WP:NACADEMIC. He has had a fashion exhibit in at least two countries,
Belarus and
Azerbaijan, and probably several more that don't have easily available English sources.
Russian Wikipedia translation says "Alexander Vasiliev was awarded state awards of France - Order of Arts and Literature [36] (2016) and Latvia - Cross of recognition of IV degree [37] (2018), as well as non-state awards - with the medal of S.P. Dyagilev [38] for the promotion of Russian art , medal of V. Nizhinsky, Order “Patron of the Arts”, Gold Medal of the Academy of Arts of Russia. Twice is the winner of the award "TOBAV" [39] in Turkey. He was presented in the nomination “Fashion Legend” at the World Fashion Awards in 2010. In 2011, residents of the Samara Region awarded Vasilyev the regional award “People’s Recognition” [40]. In the same year, Vasiliev became an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Arts."
Keep "Text not show notability" what does that even mean?. From a search i can see a lot of
WP:SIGCOV and he was awarded with state awards of France - Order of Arts and Literature. He has been featured on NYpost in 2007, CNNTURK and some many other media houses that are reliable. Kindly make a thorough search before anymore comment. Maybe articles needs to be written properly but definitely not delete.
PlotHelpful (
talk)
11:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:V and
WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any sources to verify any of this information. All the search results I could find are about another Janusz Cedro who is a museum curator. I checked the Polish version to see if there are some sources there we could use, but it is also completely unsourced.
Bradv17:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I've added some of the references found, so it should satisfy
WP:GNG. Considering that he was most active pre-internet age, and the sources in Polish may not have been archived for easy access on the internet, that there is still coverage of the person suggests that he is notable.
Hzh (
talk)
10:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Of the four Polish-language sources added to the article,
[12] is an interview,
[13] is a corporate bio, possibly self-published,
[14] only mentions the subject in passing, and
[15] is an announcement from a municipal website. Where is the significant coverage in
reliable sources to satisfy GNG?
Bradv🍁
16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - I really tried to scrape for a solid source to provide this article, as it is decently written and some good work has gone into all the media attached to the page. However, with all that said I just could not find any significant source that would satisfy
WP:GNG on this article. Maybe someone better qualified to look over Polish sources could rescue the article, but until then I have to agree with
Bradv's nom. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk?09:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or
WP:SPIP. Has raised $4M in funding, which is low. Created by
Special:Contributions/JDob4 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet
WP:NCORP.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Did you search Google Books? There are plenty of sources, and many more if you search for
"Jayatu Sanskritam". There is plenty of material to improve and adequately reference the article. The redirect to
Revolution of 1951 is tempting, but it seems it could easily become
WP:UNDUE in that article, and Jayatu Sanskritam extends before and beyond the 1951 revolution. You will also find mentions and sections for Jayatu Sanskritam in several other WP articles. If the article survives AfD, I will move it to
Jayatu Sanskritam.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
22:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Followup@
Jacknstock and
Shashankshree: I
edited the para at Revolution of 1951, and the only significant coverage I could find (Google, GBooks, Scholar) for "Jayatu Sanskrit[am]" was ~1 page in Snellinger (2018). The other (English language) coverage of the movement I could see was very light. Including more detail while avoiding
close paraphrasing of Snellinger is a little tricky without accessing (presumed) Nepali and offline sources. Do you have reliable sources accessible other than Snellinger with which you can flesh the article out significantly? Am happy for it to be kept as an article if it is going to be more than a stub, but if it's only going to be a para or two then I see redirect with the possibility of later
SPINOUT as better. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~13:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The problem with redirecting to
Revolution of 1951#Jayatu Sanskritam is that the Jayatu Sanskritam uprising occurred in 1947, four years before the 1951 revolution, so was an entirely separate event. Assuming it's correct that forty-two participants were exiled and others were imprisoned, it seems to be a significant and notable event in the history of Nepal. I will search later to see if I can add anything, but I don't understand local languages so we may need help from others, such as the other editors who have contributed to this and associated articles. It looks interesting, though, so I'd like to know more.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
18:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The 1947 uprising provides background/context in the 1951 revolution article, and a quarter of the Snellinger text also deals with them in that context. Snellinger appears to only use 1 reference for the JS (Ojha 2012). Ultimately there are likely to be sufficient sources somewhere for a fuller article sometime -- the question is should it be later (in which case redirect with
Template:R with possibilities should be used and
WP:NOPAGE and
WP:SPINOUT apply) or immediately. Won't be unhappy if (or likely when) the verdict happens to be a keep, but without demonstrated expansion, am still landing at redirect as better for the while. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~01:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
None of the sources mention "Kestrels Class Rooms", all of them are about Beaconhouse and "The Educators". Seems like a promotional edit, since the user who created the page also has a username Kestrel.
Daiyusha (
talk)
09:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (
WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Soviet actors such as
Innokenty Smoktunovsky and
Klara Luchko playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at
WP:FILM--
RTY9099 (
talk)
10:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article has been tagged for lack of in-line citations for five years. I made a good-faith effort to source the material, but could only find blogs, rail fan sites, and other sources which didn't meet
WP:RS. I assume this is a real thing, and I simply wasn't finding the right sources, so I blew it up to a stub which was little more than a
WP:DICTDEF, but sourced to what looked like a
WP:RS. It turns out, the publisher, iUniverse, is a vanity press, so even that effort was fruitless.
I'm actually hoping somebody can find some good
WP:RS for this, because it's probably a notable topic. But, I was unable to find any, so bringing it here for review. --
RoySmith(talk)01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the better source. Could you make it even better by providing a relevant quote? See my earlier citation for an example of how that's done. Not strictly necessary, but it would make the citation more useful since it's not available on-line. --
RoySmith(talk)16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The majority of the North American railroad network is run under TWC. To Nominate the page for deletion because it lacks in-line citations is incredibly spiteful. If you have a problem with an article, try the talk page first.
Sturmovik (
talk)
13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)reply
It's not a definition, it's a major type of railroad block operation distinct from tokens and absolute block.
RoySmith deleted most of the article due to reference problems then, because it was a stub, proposed it for deletion. The article has been restored and the reference problems fixed. This deletion request needs to be closed.
Sturmovik (
talk)
12:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I didn't propose it because it was a stub. I proposed it because it didn't have any good sources. I'm still concerned about the quality of the sources. The Solomon book certainly looks like it's probably a
WP:RS, but I'm disappointed that
User:Mackensen didn't take me up on my request to improve the reference with a quote. I live in New York, so I'm blessed with one of the best public libraries in the world. Unfortunately, they don't have a copy of this book, so I couldn't go look at it myself. The GCOR Rulebook is a
WP:PRIMARY source. We need
WP:SECONDARY sources. --
RoySmith(talk)00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith: The book's available on Google Books, and I've never been a major fan of quoting in references. Voyageur Press is a reputable publisher; Solomon has written numerous books and has been published in Trains.
Mackensen(talk)00:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Google Books is non-deterministic about which pages it shows. When I tried to look this up a few days ago, it wouldn't show me the page you cited, 135. When I went back to it now, I'm getting page 135. Saying that you're not a fan of quoting just says you're not a fan of providing the best material that we can for our readers. We want our readers to be able to verify everything that's in the encyclopedia. If something is reliably on line, we can do that by providing a link. If something's not on line (or only on line in some screwy way like Google Books which may or may not show a particular page on a given day), providing a quote is a good way to ensure the reader can find the material. That's why under
WP:CITE#Additional annotation, it says, A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. That certainly applies here. --
RoySmith(talk)00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The article has been expanded greatly since my comment. I don't agree with the deletion of stubs merely because they are stubs, and "probably a notable topic" usually means it will be kept in some form. Should it be moved to
Track warrant control to describe the system rather than the method of authorization?
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
13:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm going to move it as soon as this is over, assuming nobody else does it first. On the basis of the article being about a railway control system, it is a clear keep.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly supports an article. We can accept a cite to a book even if the page is not (or always) available on google. And we can cite to a rulebook or similar document for what it itself says (not an interpretation of what it means, but what it says)-- we don't need a secondary source for what it says. And to avoid an argument on that, quotes work best.
Kablammo (
talk)
14:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Most of the citations to the GCOR Rulebook are indeed interpretations of what it means. I'm sure the author of this article was a subject matter expert, and probably knows this stuff so well that it's obvious what it all means. But to me, a relative layman, I look at the referenced sentence in the article, and at the cited section in the rulebook, and it's not clear to me how you got from one to the other. It's obvious at this point that this article is going to be kept. And, yes, I know AfD is not cleanup, but this really needs better sourcing. A fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia is that everything should be
verifiable. For every fact stated in an article, I should be able to find a
WP:RS which confirms that the fact is true. Taking an article which is mostly
original research and saying, "Here's the rulebook, it's all there" may meet the letter of law as far as
WP:V goes, but it's not doing our best job to write an encyclopedia. --
RoySmith(talk)17:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.
Strong keep: (nominator) This person had held a highest-level appointed administrative post (
Rector (academia)) at a major academic institution
University of Medicine 2, Yangon, and served as President of country-level Red Cross organization (
Myanmar Red Cross Society). The person has received considerable coverage in multiple published reliable news. IMO, there is no notability problem.
However, there is a dispute that the person is notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the national Red Cross society. I've disputed the change (blank-and-redirect) and an attempt was made to reach a consensus by discussing in
Talk:Tha Hla Shwe and
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tha Hla Shwe. My point is the article is notable for an article and should not redirect to
Myanmar Red Cross Society. But another user favours blank-and-redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion. DR volunteer suggests the best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion.
So, I've recovered the article from page history, copyedited and removed unverified information. Now, I am nominating the article for deletion in order to resolve the dispute. Phyo WP(message)04:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Subject meets
WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" as a member of the Myanmar Academy of Medical Science, and #6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.". He is eligible for an article whether or not he has been president of the national Red Cross, and his notability could not be shown by inclusion in or redirection to the Red Cross article.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
11:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy close (changed to snow keep, for similar reasoning, strike so as not to !vote twice Polyamorph (
talk) 08:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)) On the basis that the nominator is not proposing deletion. This "dispute" would have been far better dealt with had editors actually improved the sources on the page - rather than wasting time and effort in dispute resolution and here. This article is very poorly sourced, these must be improved to maintain wikipedia's quality standards. Polyamorph (
talk)
14:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Question - How does
User:Polyamorph propose to resolve this content dispute, if they contend that AFD is not an appropriate venue? Is a
Request for Comments, which takes 30 days to run, required, or are they suggesting that the dispute be resolved by edit-warring, or are they suggesting that all disputes in which the choices are to Keep and to Redirect should always be decided in favor of Redirect?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
02:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Reply as I was referred to by username. All we are saying, is ... give verifiable information from reliable sources, especially important for BLPs ... a chance. There is no dispute. I have added a template requesting more sources for this BLP, as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter. The burden is on those who create BLPs to add sourced information. This matter did not need dispute resolution or AfD and certainly does not warrant an RfC! Polyamorph (
talk)
07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I wonder whether there may be an anti-Myanmar prejudice at work here. The country is a pariah for humanitarian reasons, but that should not reflect on one of its doctors, and we haven't even researched (and shouldn't research) his views on political controversies involving his country.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow keep as this isn't a deletion discussion, no one has suggested deletion. This article was redirected by multiple users due to poor sourcing. This is not "back-door" deletion as
Robert McClenon seems to enjoy describing it, as the page history is preserved and can be restored at any time and expanded by anybody. No one disputes notability, the only request has been to improve sourcing. These requests have been entirely ignored in favour of making bad faith accusations against good faith editors.
Robert McClenon, you work in dispute resolution but really have done a fantastic job here at stirring up dispute where there is none. For the record, there is no evidence of anti-Myanmar prejudice and the suggestion that there has been by any of the three good-standing users (
Mean as custard,
Onel5969,
Polyamorph) that redirected this page is offensive. Polyamorph (
talk)
06:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - The statement that I have been "stirring up dispute where there is none" is seriously mistaken. There certainly is a controversy about whether
Tha Hla Shwe should be a
biography of a living person or a redirect. That controversy was there before I became involved, and I became involved only because a request was made to help resolve a controversy. There is and has been a dispute. There is a dispute, a blank-and-redirect dispute, and a meta-dispute, a dispute over how to resolve a dispute. (As to anti-Myanmar prejudice, I wondered whether there was a prejudice. If there isn't, that answers that question, but it doesn't make the blank-and-redirect dispute go away.) If anyone is proposing that the blank-and-redirect dispute cannot be settled at AFD because it is not a true deletion dispute, I am willing to consider a suggestion for an alternate means of resolving the dispute. Please either allow AFD to continue as a method of resolving this blank-and-redirect dispute, or propose an alternate method of resolving the blank-and-redirect dispute.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
19:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not mistaken. You don't accuse good faith editors of racial prejudice without good reason (i.e. evidence). An retraction is required. There is no dispute, as mentioned in my comment above I tagged the article requesting more sources and that is the end of the matter. No one is advocating deletion. No one is advocating redirection. All we are advocating is to improve the sources (I've looked but can't find suitable ones, so other editors will have to do this). But AfD is not for cleanup. Polyamorph (
talk)
20:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - If no one is advocating redirection at this time, this AFD can be closed with a conclusion of Keep. This AFD was initiated because there had been revert-warring following a blank-and-redirect; if no one is advocating blank-and-redirect any more, then the dispute has been resolved.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a hiking and biking trail, referenced only to the
primary source content of the local government that built and operates it rather than any evidence of
reliable source coverage about it. As always, every piece of municipal infrastructure on earth is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the question is whether independent sources have paid it enough attention to make its existence noteworthy, not just whether its owner's own
self-published website provides technical verification of existence.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
Bearcat, I created this page as one of my first Wikipages because of large of a project this is. It runs through several cities, sparked multiple stories in the media for many years, and still ongoing. I can do a basic Google Search and pull up a few newspapers covering the story. Local papers and Provincial. The CRD is actually a government entity that runs projects on the Island. Furthermore, you can't have the EN Trail without the various other trails such as the Galloping Goose, which are smaller in scope. You would be hard pressed to find anyone saying that trailis not of extreme importance to the day to day function of multiple cities on the Island. Even the Mayor during the last debates had it as a major issue during the last Victoria mayoral election To be quite blunt, the EN Trail has upturned everyone's life in Victoria and beyond do to the extensive years of ripping up all the major roads to build this trail between several cities.
This isn't a state or provincial park — it's a municipal recreational facility, which doesn't get the same automatic presumption of notability just for existing in the absence of more than just a smattering of local coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep What I'm not getting is if the Galloping Goose Trail is ok to have on Wikipedia, and this is MUCH bigger roadway for non-motorists, then why the EN Trail does not qualify? The Notability factor is how wildly divisive this trail has been for over a decade. Living on the Island, There is limited land and even less access to roads. The concept of diverting space from cars and trucks for just non motorized vehicles is significant due to the political shift towards pushing for greener solutions in cities. The green roadway systems on the Island are used as a model for other cities in the world like Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, and other international cities. Mostly because we have limited space, harsh winters, and a massively growing population. Makes for a great model to apply to other cities in the world about going green with limited space. So I can understand why a person would say "who cares about this Canadian commuter trail", but when you factor in the politics, the usage of such trails in green projects globally, then you can see the real value. I figured since this trail is bigger, more political, and more covered than the other trails in the area such as the Galloping Goose, that the EN Trail would be a great companion article to complement the other trails in the system already on Wikipedia.
ReliableShick (
talk)
01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Other articles are not a reliable guide to what is acceptable on Wikipedia, see
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Every case is considered on its own merits, but it looks like this one is only going to close one way.
SpinningSpark03:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. I've spent at least an hour combing through some old newspaper articles, and now the article has 22 inline citations. Hopefully this can be further expanded over time. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)06:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. There are now several references in the article, and I've not even searched newspaper archives, local or otherwise. Sure, more sources are needed to help flesh out this article, but I believe there's a story to be told here about one of the most popular gay bars in the United States. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)02:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I still don't see how additional local news stories about a fire and local paper listings establish notability. None of these pass the "substantive" part of GNG.
Reywas92Talk21:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:GNG, and subsequent improvements since this AFD tagging. Personally, I would see its original state as a stub qualification. However, it certainly qualifies now. Given the title of the nightclub, Wikipedia's Find sources toolbar, and generally other searches via Bing or Google, bring up results for Houston, Texas, "The Eagle has landed", or any number of possibilities. This is one of those searches where the editor has to know how to filter. It doesn't hurt to have some knowledge of LGBT publications and how to find them. This article should be kept.
— Maile (
talk)
15:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Gay bars don't need "distinguishing characteristics" to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they just need enough
reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG. I'll grant that Another Believer did once undertake a misguided project of trying to start a single-sourced stub about every single gay bar that got blurbed in one isolated listicle — but they clearly learned from that, because they're trying much harder to source gay bars properly now and I've never been able to identify any serious problems with their work on gay bars since then.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete to allow pagemove. Given the page size and that the registered and defunct sections have different structures and functions, split out the defunct section from
List of political parties in Australia as suggested by Cateline52. Move the registered party article under this title, and hatnote that
list of political parties in Australia redirects there, with a pointer provided to the defunct list article. No objection to other country articles doing a similar split, but no requirement either (Does France really have only eight historical parties?). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~03:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another longevity claimant with almost no information. The majority of this article is irrelevant filler material about other old people and the standard "secret to longevity". Once stripped of that, we're left with a couple of dates and a nationality; a list on the
Longevity claims article can handle that.
WP:NOPAGE here.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい)
01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This article fails
WP:BIO1E, and
WP:NOPAGE. The article says very little about this obvious fraudster. She scammed some media coverage, but the article still says more about other people then it does her. Maybe deserves a mention at
Longevity myths (her age claim is so absurd she doesn't even qualify for
longevity claims), but nothing more.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
02:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These articles lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. We are not supposed to be a platform for righting great wrongs.
Rzvas (
talk)
06:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Videogame player who streams her games on Twitch and has followers. Sponsored by Corsair, a company that produces PC hardware and periphericals, sources are either blogs, no mainstream, Twitch related, or Corsair sponsored. No established GNG noted.
1l2l3k (
talk)
00:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
1. AnneMunition (born May 12, 1990, age 28), is an American Twitch streamer and internet personality. As of October 2018, she has more than 400,000 followers on Twitch, and more than 13.5 million channel views Source
Twitch.tv --- It's a promotional website and nothing
2. The second paragraph is cited but i can't see even just passing of mentions on
The Daily Dot and lbpost.com which are no less than promotional or money generating sites.
3. On streamersquare.com, they said (Participants: UGRGaming, Annemunition, DistractedElf and Annemunition – Not very affected. Blessed to be part of a wonderful community that accepts) .... the article in question should be deleted immediately.
Farooqahmadbhat (
talk)
19:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.