Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Cinema Tycoon 2: Movie Mania (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Does not appear to be notable per
WP:NVG due to lack of significant discussion of it in independent reliable sources. ...
discospinster
talk
22:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Video games-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
08:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Does have one review that passes muster at
WP:VG (
[1]), but I'm not able to find any other significant coverage. Open to changing !vote if more sources are found.
Nomader (
talk)
16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:VG/SE has just the one above. Delete. --
Izno (
talk)
17:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, as with
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema Tycoon, as not notable
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
07:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, fails
WP:GNG.
Videogameplayer99 (
talk)
23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Merge with article on
Cinema Tycoon - it is not really necessary for this to have a separate article.
Vorbee (
talk)
15:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:-
~~~~
10
Eleventeen
20:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete References are crap.
Dial911 (
talk)
17:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Ivan Shapovalov (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No evidence of any notability. Even those that he manages have only a tenuous grip on notability and, for him, notability is not inherited. The only reference is not about him at all. Fails
WP:GNG
Velella
Velella Talk
21:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Russia-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep Although they aren't in the article, there are other references on Shapovalov that spend a bit more time on him.
Here is a book that mentions his role a few times. He is quite prominent in this
NYT piece. Here's one in the
Moscow Times, not sure if they are reliable or not. Here's another one in the
Irish Times. Here's a piece from
Spiegel Online. And one from the
Chicago Tribune. And here's another one I'm not sure about from
NME. Looks like he may have significant reliable source coverage; while the pieces I linked are primarily about tATu, they do discuss Shapovalov in some depth.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
07:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
Keep included these publications as citations
[2],
[3],
[4], there's lots more.
Otrantos (
talk) 13:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC) —
Otrantos (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. —
striking comment from
checkuser-blocked account
Mz7 (
talk)
22:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There seems to be plenty of sources. ~
EDDY (
talk/
contribs)~
20:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep plenty of sources. \\\Septrillion:-
~~~~
10
Eleventeen
20:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep passes GNG.
Dial911 (
talk)
17:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Warinus de la Strode (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Subject is rather obscure. The only references are to a book that gives him one-sentence, and two different renderings (one of them dead) of the same primary reference (representing WP:OR). This seems to have started out as a hagiographic celebration of someone's favorite ancestor taken from a self-published book, by an editor claiming to be 'a member of the House of Strode', but with all of the non-reliable information removed, there just isn't anything left that makes the person notable. WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY
Agricolae (
talk)
21:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of History-related deletion discussions.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Melbourne Football Club.
Sandstein
20:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Sports award limited to one club, which hasn't received much attention (mainly it is added as an epitheton ornans to "Daisy Pearce" in some articles, the award itself isn't the subject of independent attention I could find). Article was prodded, but prod removed because " It's a club best and fairest award... every club has one, and each has an article.." which is not really a policy based reason why this award is notable enough to have a standalone article.
Fram (
talk)
13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Highest individual club award for a National Football team playing at the highest level, meets notability as its for a club with 100 years of history such award lists are always in sub articles to stop the main article being over loaded with such information.
Gnan
garra
13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The award is two year's old, the women's club is 5 years old. Please check
WP:N, your "meets notability" argument isn't policy-based at all. It would be much more logical, if you are worried about overloading the main article with the two-year, one-winner history, to create a separate article for the women's club (which is of course notable) instead of one for this minor aspect of that club...
Fram (
talk)
13:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The club is the Melbourne Football Club, the club has two teams, one playing the mens competition and one playing in the womens competition.
Gnan
garra
13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- added a reference from an independent source about Daisy receiving Melbourne B&F awards, it defining characteristic about her, the club, and the team. Additionally Fox Sport has more about the award behind a paywall
Gnan
garra
- it would be nice if you actually did add such a reference. The ref you instead added
[5] is one of those I refered to in my opening statement, a truly passing mention of the award in an article about a player: "the dual Melbourne best and fairest winner thinks" is the only thing that source says about the award, which is thus not a source which confers notability to the award. And that's from a local sports radio, the kind of source one would expect to pay a lot more attention to the actual award, but the example given isn't even routine coverage of the award...
Fram (
talk)
14:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- To be fair, we're probably a fair way off splitting the women's teams into their own articles. We're not worried about the size of the main article increasing quickly due to this particular list (because, obviously, it won't), but it's certainly helpful to have them split off, even if the resulting articles are quite small to begin with. What I will say is that this is being done for all clubs with women's teams – I had one more left to create before you nominated this article for deletion.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- But "we do this for all clubs" is hardly a reason to create these if they aren't notable. This one certainly seems to be a so-far non notable award, and I'm not really convinced that any of the others is any better in that regard.
- Keep (edit conflict) per all of the above. Also, the club is still over 150 years old; it's the women's team that's only been around for a couple of years, not a separate club, making the notability argument perfectly valid. Pinging the go-to Melbourne fan
Flickerd.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Congrats, you have just violated
WP:CANVASS by explicitly pinging a club fan. Anyway, in what way does the age of the club confer
Wikipedia notability to a two year old club award for a five year old club segment? (Oh, and "all of the above" is 1 person...).
Fram (
talk)
- You're taking that too seriously... Flickerd's a Melbourne fan, but probably the go-to person across just about all things AFL; he would probably know more about the club itself than I would, however. "All of the above" referred to the reasons stated, not the amount of commenters – you are being very nitpicky.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- "All of the reasons stated" is fine, but there is nothing there even close to meeting
WP:N. An old institution creating a brand new award for a brand new branch, where a few people from the club pick the best from their own players, is not a claim to notability. That the award is mentioned in passing by a local sports radio station is also not a claim to notability. So far, there have been two very swift "keeps", but no ground to base that "keep" on.
Fram (
talk)
14:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Club best and fairest awards don't always receive a whole lot of wide coverage, particularly in comparison to league-wide awards – your wording makes it sound as though only league-wide awards which have a lot of coverage/sources are notable enough to have their own articles, and club awards are not.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- No, what I try to say is that "only
league-wide awards which have a lot of coverage/sources are notable enough to have their own articles". This is much more common for league-wide awards than for club awards, but there is no a priori rule that league-wide is notable, nor that clublevel is not notable. It's just that in this csae, it looks as if this specific club award is not (yet) notable.
Fram (
talk)
14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- To me, the very first argument made – that the award is the highest individual honour at a club competing at the highest (national) level, which it is – should be reason enough.
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs)
14:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- But notability is not inherited, and the "highest individual honour" for a small group of people decided by an even smaller group of people from the same club is not notable unless independent reliable sources give it significant attention, not passing mentions. You are free to try to get our notability standards changed so that the thousands of similar awards all over the world for clubs in all kinds of sports all are considered automatically notable, but I doubt you will have much success with this.
Fram (
talk)
14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Melbourne Football Club; the fact that the women's team doesn't have an article should be a sign this is not a reasonable topic for an article at this time. The only non-trivial references are to the team's own website.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. I'm very mixed on this as to whether it constitutes its own article or whether it should be redirected to
Melbourne Football Club. Although I do feel this article may be a bit
WP:TOOSOON, in saying that, while the Melbourne best and fairest hasn't received a whole lot of independent coverage (probably due to who the winner has been and her multiple other achievements), other club B&Fs have
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9] as an example and I don't think we can have one club B&F deemed notable and others not. In addition, although this discussion focuses primarily on players (
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 7#RFC on sports notability), editors within
WP:AFL tend to edit in the way and believe
AFL and
AFLW are treated equally, i.e. all men's articles have B&FS and probably the reason for the creation of this page. Also in response to this being awarded to a "small group of people decided by an even smaller group of people from the same club", there was a real crackdown a few years ago in the project regarding non-notable club awards. This award, in my opinion, does not fall into that group as it is the most elite level women can play Australian rules football at and the preeminent award within each women's team.
Flickerd (
talk)
07:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + project consensus are both not acceptable reasons to keep an article where no notability for the subject can be demonstrated. "I don't think we can have one club B&F deemed notable and others not. " is simply not the way enwiki works. No matter if other B&Fs are notable or not, has no bearing on keeping or deleting this one. All you basically are saying is "it should be notable", which is a nice sentiment but not a basis to decide AfDs on.
Fram (
talk)
08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect If this is a notable award or a notable club, then it isn't reflected in the sources: Since it is clearly neither, redirect to the parent article, MFC.
—SerialNumber54129
paranoia /
cheap sh*t room
11:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete/Redirect no independant coverage asserting notability. What there is is of a routine variety (Person X wins award) and not coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG.
Only in death does duty end (
talk)
14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Melbourne Football Club: Definitely
WP:TOOSOON; sources don't cover the award itself. Other AFLW B&F's should probably be redirected to their club articles as well, assuming the source quality is roughly the same.
Tera
TIX
02:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Sandstein
20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Jerry White (Navigators) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Horrible advertisement with excessive detail and lack of independent RS. This needs to get out of mainspace asap per TNT.
Jytdog (
talk)
14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- It's badly written and poorly referenced but why are they reasons for deletion?
Knobbly (
talk)
00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Jerry White was a mid-level military leader, the leader of a global Christian organisation and an author. The article needs improvemnet but it's low quality does not detract from those three factors that make him notable.
Knobbly (
talk)
00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Just FYI - nothing you said, is relevant to notability guidelines in WP.
Jytdog (
talk)
00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
00:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Washington-related deletion discussions.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
20:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Tyler Faith (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet
WP:PORNBIO /
WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the prom controversy is significant. Mainstream appearances are minor.
Last AfD closed as "Keep" in 2009, but the arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been added to the
WikiProject Pornography
list of deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Dance-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Joice Samuel (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Promotional BLP of non-notable person
Polyamorph (
talk)
15:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
MarginalCost (
talk)
15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
MarginalCost (
talk)
15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The sources linked to seem pretty trivial and are only about one song he composed; most importantly they don't seem to mention him by name. Everything else is blatantly promotional.
MarginalCost (
talk)
15:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- [1] is a blog, [2] is some sort of ticketing website that needs a subscription, [3] is a link to a youtube video, [4] another you tube video. None of these are
reliable sources. [6] is a rating website which simply credits this person as the co-writer. [7] Is soundcloud!! Only [5] can really be said to be a useful source, and only gives one sentence saying the music is composed by Joice Samuel. The other news websites you have provided in their own section indicate that the song might be notable, but barely make any mention of Joice Samuel if at all. So there is no evidence of significant coverage whatsoever of this person in the sources you have provided.
Polyamorph (
talk)
17:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Polyamorph
talk the mentioned news article feature about the song composed by him, the singers associated are more popular than him, hence the news focuses on them more .— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Anu Appukuttan (
talk •
contribs)
- That's my point. Wikipedia requires sources that provide significant coverage of the person. Not a passing reference. The song might be notable, but that does not mean the writer of the song is also notable. Please read
Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Polyamorph (
talk)
06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk to me •
✍️ Contributions)
11:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk to me •
✍️ Contributions)
11:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk to me •
✍️ Contributions)
20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk to me •
✍️ Contributions)
20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Black Disability Justice and State Violence (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is a problematic
POV-ridden essay authored
by a student. The sources cited support parts of the content but the over-arching work is pure
OR.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
04:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Disability-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete basically because
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There are vast problems here. For one thing, parts of the article (including the title!) rely mostly on one point of view, namely that of queer women of color disabled activists. Needless to say that this is a very specific group and the article gives
undue weight to their opinion. Some parts are more salvageable but at closer inspection, some are close paraphrasing of other Wikipedia articles. For instance, compare the section
Black Disability Justice and State Violence#Racial Control, Subordination and Ugly Laws with
Ugly law#history.
Pichpich (
talk)
04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I am responsible for accepting this article, under what I think was not even the intended name, which would have been
Black Disability Justice. Discussion about my acceptance of the submission is on my talk page. I felt, at the time, that there is a significant body of literature on disability as it affects people of colour, so that it ought to be possible to have a well-sourced article about it. It should not be kept in its current form, or even under its current title. We don't seem to have anything on the topic, so perhaps it is possible to retain some of the usable content in an article about the
National Black Disability Coalition (NBDC),
Krip-Hop or
Leroy Moore Jr.
Vexations (
talk)
11:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as
WP:OR, WP:SYNTH]].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Split This is a collection of stubs and drafts on a variety of (somewhat related) topics, several of which may be viable as standalone articles.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
15:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete the current article is
WP:TNT quality (with
WP:OR,
WP:POV, and
WP:SYNTH issues), and the title is atrocious and unlikely to redirect anywhere.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
01:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. \\\Septrillion:-
~~~~
10
Eleventeen
20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
10:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Smarkets (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
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. Does not meet
WP:NCORP /
WP:CORPDEPTH. First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2006.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
00:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
00:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I contest deletion of this article. The 2006 nomination came before this company existed, so this is a different article. The company has received coverage from several reliable sources, a number of which in the last 12 months (Sky, AFP, BBC, Bloomberg). I will revise the page, remove guff and add better references.
Chopz (
talk)
10:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - having updated the article and references. For notability, I'd point to that it is front of shirt sponsor of a London football team
[10], coverage in bbc/sky/afp/telegraph
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] & adverse coverage in the UK' s Guardian
[15], amongst other mentions -
Chopz (
talk)
13:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The Guardian article is evidence of notability. Agree that the QPR sponsorship announcement is routine, but as per
WP:NCORP the company's notability is clear from the coverage by RS in MSM. The BBC, Sky etc. coverage certainly meets the notability criteria.-
Chopz (
talk)
16:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- No. Please read
WP:NCORP. None of that coverage is "intellectually independent" as it is all based on company-produced announcements, information, interviews, etc. The Guardian article is reporting on an event with little or no in-depth information on the company itself and no independent analysis/opinion.
HighKing
++
16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Environment & Urbanization. Content can be merged from history if it can be sourced.
Sandstein
20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Medio Ambiente y Urbanización (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I couldn't find many independent sources about this journal (but
it exists) nor could I find it in
Scopus, so I believe this fails
WP:NJOURNALS and
WP:GNG. It is unsourced, which is why I don't understand it was accepted through AfC.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
06:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Environment-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Latin America-related deletion discussions.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- This is a successful and highly regarded urban journal produced since 1983 – and with the last 13 years of its issues available open access on Ingenta (one of the leading publishers of on-line journals). If you search in Google Scholar, you get many papers from this journal listed with citations’ details. I suspect that it is not in SCOPUS because SCOPUS does not seek to include Spanish language journals--
Rhino209 (
talk)
07:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the nominator's evident inability to search for sources in Spanish is not the article's fault. Our page on the daughter English publication
Environment & Urbanization which shares content amd editorial control IS well referenced and clearly notable so why would it's older Spanish mother be non-notable? The publisher
International Institute for Environment and Development is also notable. The nomination is also not correct - the page has a source and more can be added. I accepted the page based on the notability of the English version with the same editors and much of the same content. If the nominator feels really strongly that the spanish version is not notable they should merge and redirect to the existing
Environment & Urbanization page.
Legacypac (
talk)
09:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Environment & Urbanization. Like Chris, I'm amazed that an unsourced stub made it through AfC. There is absolutely no evidence that this is "successful and highly regarded" and contrary to what
Rhino209 claims, Scopus does include journals in other languages than English (as do the
Clarivate Analytics databases). Looking at GScholar I don't see anything indicating notability. Some articles have received some citations, many more haven't been cited even once. That the sister publication or the publisher are notable is
absolutely irrelevant. In short, there's not a shred of evidence that this is notable and how someone can !vote keep for something that is completely unsourced (with only an external link to online content) is beyond me. Any worthwhile info present in this stub is already present in the article on the sister journal, so a merge is not necessary. Unless significant sources turn up (in Spanish or other languages), this is an utter fail of NJournals or GNG. --
Randykitty (
talk)
09:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion.
North America
1000
01:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Mellisa Nielsen (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Previously declined for speedy deletion, this individual fails
WP:BIO. No notability is claimed in the article other than failing to take part in a TV reality show. The article also contradicts itself, claiming in the lead that she is an auctioneer, and claiming elsewhere that she has a modelling agency and has started a fundraising group.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
07:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
TMG
talk
10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
TMG
talk
10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
TMG
talk
10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Doesn't pass GNG. She has a Youtube channel. Some very minor coverage due to not appearing in
Survivor: Fiji (and that is mentioned there already - I presume with her maiden name). Very little coverage overall. I don't think the article contradicts itself, per
this she was a model, ran a small modelling agency, and then starting this charity/auction thing - however this simply is not SIGCOV.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. If this person passes the
WP:GNG, then everybody does. Another "Melissa Nielsen can be found on
IMDB; if this was the same person, then a very weak case could have been made for keeping the article. But it isn't. This article also suffers from
WP:O, by the way.
Jeff5102 (
talk)
10:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete no claim of notability. As far as I can tell, this could be a composite profile of multiple different people.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
01:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:-
~~~~
10
Eleventeen
20:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Heath Ledger. Content can be merged from history. Apart from the creator nobody is convinced that this is notable.
Sandstein
20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
The Masses (collective) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This seems to be almost exclusively coasting along on inherited notability from Heath Ledger. There's exactly one piece of dedicated coverage here, and that's ref #1
[16]. Everything else is incidental mentions in Ledger coverage. I do not believe that one magazine article makes this collective clear the notability hurdle. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
I understand your feedback, I will do my best to add primary sources that are purely about The Masses. Let's use your attention to make this article better
Jon Phillips (
talk)
12:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Heath Ledger for the reasons
Elmidae lays out. I appreciate
Jon Phillips efforts to improve this page but am concerned by their saying primary sources as the way to improve. This article needs secondary sources to improve. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
14:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Working on secondary sourcing.
Jon Phillips (
talk)
15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
08:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
08:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
Ok, I linked up more sources, linked other articles, cleaned up the page hierarchy for more content I'm going to add, put a thumbnail, infobox and some more. I'm still working on the article. Thanks for feedback.
Jon Phillips (
talk)
10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
And added links from seceral more articles now that were just not linked, references, I Am Heath Ledger addition, and connected to Ledger article and more.
Jon Phillips (
talk)
08:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry, but - as far as I can see, all of these are passing mentions. I'm not sure whether we are on the same page here what constitutes "dedicated, in-depth coverage". The LA Weekly article is that; none of the other refs are. It seems to me that it is rather futile to try and scrape together notability from scattered and three-degrees-removed mentions :/ --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
09:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Naic–Indang Road (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable portion of NR 402 in the Philippines.
Onel5969
TT me
12:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.
Onel5969
TT me
12:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
Onel5969,
Hzh, and
Imzadi1979: Help guys, the merge kinda messed up but you can check the N402 highway for suggestions and improvements.
hueman1
(talk)
11:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Uhh what now? You proposed a deletion and you left me hanging?
hueman1
(talk)
02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
British Longevity Society (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article was almost certainly written by the founder of the group. I have removed the self-sourced content and one press release, and that leaves no sources. I went Googling for more but every single one fails the Marsh test for
churnalism.
Guy (
Help!)
12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
MT Train
Talk
14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - this article has no references, and the only external link is to the group's own website. It might be worth resuscitating if some one can find more information and more references for the group.
Vorbee (
talk)
16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Merge and redirect: Most/all of the sources relating to the BLS seem to revolve around conferences attended and speeches given by
Marios Kyriazis, who already has his own Wikipedia page. I suspect the BLS is just a vessel for Kyriazis. I'm also unsure if
Mazkyri, who created both the BLS page and the Kyriazis page, has a
WP:COI and is Kyriazis himself. This was implied by an IP address: see
this revision to the Kyriazis page. The Kyriazis page might not survive an AfD itself. In the meanwhile, though, the BLS page and the Kyriazis page ought to be merged, and the BLS page redirected to the Kyriazis page.
MB190417 (
talk)
12:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Otherwise, judging by
the contributions of the article's creator, we should merge and redirect to a great big Wikipedia 'the Kyriazis Family' series, featuring
Neoklis Kyriazis,
Marios Kyriazis,
Kyriazi Freres and
Damianos Kyriazis.
MB190417 (
talk)
12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Having recently edited
Marios Kyriazis to remove blatant hot air, I don't think there is much to merge with or redirect to, and now support deletion.
- 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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
10:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Christopher Filardi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
BLP1E
EnPassant (
talk)
14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
SkyGazer 512
Oh no, what did I do this time?
15:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, week-ish, but still. Gscholar gives him the
h-index of 16, which is OK, but in an a high citation field like molecular biology not sufficient to satisfy
WP:PROF#C1 on its own. Of the 4 well-cited papers, he is the first author on one. The kingfisher episode has a
WP:BIO1E feel to it. I am not seeing anything else to hang one's hat on in terms of satisfying
WP:PROF after looking up his
staff profile page at the
American Museum of Natural History. No mentions of things like awards, society fellowships, journal editorships, prestigious lectures, etc. Still looks to me like a
WP:TOOSOON case.
Nsk92 (
talk)
20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- He is not a molecular biologist, he is a
wildlife biologist, first author a number of papers, including : (Filardi, Christopher E., and Joshua Tewksbury. “Ground-Foraging Palm Cockatoos (Probosciger Aterrimus) in Lowland New Guinea: Fruit Flesh as a Directed Deterrent to Seed Predation?” Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 21, no. 4, 2005, pp. 355–361. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4092013,) (FILARDI, CHRISTOPHER E., and CATHERINE E. SMITH. “SOCIAL SELECTION AND GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN TWO MONARCH FLYCATCHERS FROM THE SOLOMON ISLANDS - Selección Social y Variación Geográfica En Dos Especies De Monarcha De Las Islas Solomon.” The Condor, vol. 110, no. 1, 2008, pp. 24–34. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/cond.2008.110.1.24,) (Filardi, Christopher E., and Sievert Rohwer. “Life History Implications of Complete and Incomplete Primary Molts in Pelagic Cormorants.” The Condor, vol. 103, no. 3, 2001, pp. 555–569. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1369827.) and similar, including a widely major paper in
Nature (journal). Nature. 2005 Nov 10;438(7065):216-9.
Single origin of a pan-Pacific bird group and upstream colonization of Australasia.
Filardi CE1, Moyle RG.. Note that he is also widely cited not only in popular books on tropical conservation. Moreover, this is not the usuual BLP1E kind of episode. The online mobbing and spate of irrational, inaccurate news coverage was followed not only by more serious coverage in places like
The Guardian
[17], but also by last week's long, thoughtful essay in the
New York Times was by
Kirk W. Johnson, author of
The Feather Thief, who was interviewing Filardi as part of a book project, although it is not clear whether Filardi appears in Johnson's recent book, or on one that he is writing now. And he had been in the news before UPI 19 April 2007
New genus of bird found in South Pacific, "...a new genus of frogmouth bird on a South Pacific island..."; in the
Folha de S.Paulo, 5 July 2009
Até que Darwin os separe discussing new species on oceanic islands, and more similar.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
02:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
10:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Jana Jordan (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The articleis cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet
WP:PORNBIO /
WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the "Pet of the Month" honour is not significant. Mainstream appearances are minor.
First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2010, but the arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. cinco de
L3X1
◊distænt write◊
01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco de
L3X1
◊distænt write◊
01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. cinco de
L3X1
◊distænt write◊
01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Texas-related deletion discussions. cinco de
L3X1
◊distænt write◊
01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
11:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been added to the
WikiProject Pornography
list of deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
11:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
10:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Sir Richard of Cornwall (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Essentially an exclusively genealogical entry with no indication of notability. It has a half-dozen references but they are all either documenting who is related to whom, or the family heraldry, and do not establish that this person has received any coverage as an individual rather than just as a name at a particular place in a pedigree. It had even more genealogy before I removed it. The only non-genealogical/heraldic statements are that his brother gave him some land (which was only used by its uncited source to demonstrate he really was son of his father), and method of demise. If that is all that can be found, he falls well short of the notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO). In short, WP:NOTGENEALOGY.
Agricolae (
talk)
00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of History-related deletion discussions.
Agricolae (
talk)
00:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
01:29, 30 June 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.