Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 May 11 May >

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure)  —  F R + 07:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Alison Glennie

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

The actress in question is non-notable. Although she had appeared in several, recurring roles, none of them are particularly notable. I attempted to find articles indicating the actress' independent notability, but couldn't find any. In addition, the article was created by a banned account while the biggest contributor was the actress herself. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 14:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 23:29, 10 May 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. Enigma msg 05:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Northwest Federal Credit Union Foundation

Northwest Federal Credit Union Foundation (  | 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 charitable foundation. The Credit Union itself doesn't even have an article as best I can tell. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 23:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. If the parent organization isn't notable enough, how could a child organization? Donations other than the scholarship program are relatively small so they're nothing beyond WP:ROTM. The main beneficiaries of the scholarship program are the children of the members, which is not-notable. Acnetj ( talk) 08:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Weak because I only looked at the sources in the article and didn't do my own searching. But, from what I can see, almost all the sources are first-party, and thus don't meet WP:RS, and thus the whole thing doesn't meet WP:NCORP.
I am intrigued by Acnetj's question, If the parent organization isn't notable enough, how could a child organization?. It seems to me if notability isn't inherited, then neither is lack of notability. But that's neither here nor there. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- search doesn't come up with much more than press releases. I didn't really look into the parent organization though, it may be notable, but either way this isn't.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:22, 18 May 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 18:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

We Love Our Enterprises Movement

We Love Our Enterprises Movement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly promotional. Cannot find any sources on this. Fails WP:NORG Rogermx ( talk) 22:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:08, 11 May 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 18:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Fallout (house band)

Fallout (house band) (  | 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 meet WP:BAND. Only claim of notability is being featured in a popular video game and even that is not a criterion to meet notability guideline for music. Damselfly7 ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:09, 11 May 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 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Magocracy

AfDs for this article:
Magocracy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NEO as a non-notable neologism term. Not many references discussing the notion. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:09, 11 May 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 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

List of companies listed on the TSX Venture Exchange

List of companies listed on the TSX Venture Exchange (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory or WP:LINKFARM. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:10, 11 May 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 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Imam Nur Ikar

Mohammed Imam Nur Ikar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He gets some trivial coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete because there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources as of now.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have looked at the available internet links as well as the policies above, and on second thought I agree that Nur Ikar is perhaps not yet notable enough for this website. I have saved the text for when there are more good sources on him. In the interim, please go ahead and delete the existing page. Rogundra90 ( talk) 16:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Rugrunda is CU blocked sock. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:07, 13 May 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. Redirection optional. Sandstein 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang (Italy)

List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang (Italy) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have List of programs broadcast by Boomerang and so we don't need separate articles for each region. Fully unsourced and duplicated much of the content from the parent article. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and WP:GNG Ajf773 ( talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Boomerang (UK & Ireland), which basically carries the same shows outside of Italian dubbing/subtitling (not asking for rd to main American-centric list-of since Boomerang has a completely different schedule in the European region which matches Italy's; if this does get redirected, a rename of the latter to "List of programs broadcast by Boomerang (Europe)" should be considered). Nate • ( chatter) 20:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I am really not sure we need to do that either. The programming of the Boomerang network only varies slightly between regions and really we need only one global list. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The main United States list-of mainly involves it being a place for reruns. The UK channel has much more new and exclusive content. As much as I support 'One list works for all the variations of one channel', there are room for exceptions, and there's only two list of articles for Europe (UK/I and Italy). We're not burning much disk space keeping it here as a rd, and more importantly, the UK/I list is at least sourced (more than I can say for most of these crufty kidvid list-ofs). Nate • ( chatter) 05:52, 11 May 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 18:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Au5

Au5 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant musician, does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSIC. Article has eleven total references, eight of which are primary sources, the rest of which are two interviews and one press release. Upon research, the subject barely has any coverage in other sources, and is most certainly not the primary subject of them. It therefore does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lazz _R 19:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:40, 10 May 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. Enigma msg 20:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Chanchal Debnath (Politician)

Chanchal Debnath (Politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. It seems the subject is not elected member of any legislature thus clearly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance, Saqib ( talk) 19:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:12, 11 May 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 Piyaa Albela. So Why 08:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sheen Dass

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. Apparently she has worked in a couple of TV Dramas but only one she had major role, thus fails to meet ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. I think Wikipedia:NotJustYet apply here. Saqib ( talk) 19:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No. GNG fails per the above provided links. GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." So please provide secondary coverage. You've provided links to primary coverage (interviews). -- Saqib ( talk) 19:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib: I don't agree that the sources that I gave were insufficient. However, if you want more: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/piyaa-albela-hits-one-year-milestone/articleshow/63333620.cms http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/features/10-unknown-facts-about-piyaa-albela-actress-sheen-dass-170609 http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/piya-albela-actress-sheen-dass-to-wrap-herself-in-a-sheet-a-la-maine-pyar-kiya-style/ http://www.indiawest.com/entertainment/television/zee-show-piya-albela-takes-time-leap-lead-pair-sheen/article_be645cdc-05eb-11e8-8a7c-ff2d4be7ec92.html http://mumbainewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/zee-tvs-piya-albela-hits-its-one-year.html All of those include second party analysis. Ross-c ( talk) 06:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:29, 15 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

PlushCare

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

Article about a company that I don't think meets WP:NCORP. Coverage appears limited to sources cited in article, most of which are PR-flavored hype articles from trade publications. The phys.org article only mentions PlushCare in passing. The two refs to LGBT-focused websites that focus on PlushCare making HIV prophylaxis available come closest to substantial coverage in independent sources, but I don't think they quite meet the bar. Happy to hear the thoughts of others. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:33, 11 May 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. Particularly per the close paraphrasing issues. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Child abuse (skin signs)

Child abuse (skin signs) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant portion of article is copied and pasted from websites, also WP:NOTGUIDE. Any useful information in the article is already in Child abuse. Metaloaf ( talk) 18:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 18:51, 10 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

180Vita

180Vita (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are almost entirely self-sourced, or are to press releases. Additionally the prose is quite promotional. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:14, 11 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude ( talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Kim Dong-keun

Kim Dong-keun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. The organization he runs (ran?) may be notable, but none of the sources support the idea that he is notable as an individual. Lenoresm ( talk) 21:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 18:08, 10 May 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. Per the detailed analysis by several editors, subject fails the criteria of NTRACK, and doesn't otherwise have enough coverage to pass GNG. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Molly Kingsbury

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

Lack of GNG. Also fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 01:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
NTRACK with regard to the commonwealth games says Individual events in these championships must contain several heats. There were no heats that I'm aware of. Szzuk ( talk) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude ( talk) 05:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per the request of an editor who was about to comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ MurielMary I disagree. The Commonwealth Games are not at the highest level. All countries can enter athletes they would like and there is no restriction to being entered (unlike the Olympics, in which you need to qualify). Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 13:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Sportsfan the notability guidelines for athletics also state: "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons)." Kingsbury finished in the top 8 at the Commonwealth Games. MurielMary ( talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ MurielMary Again your point is moot. "Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" - the event she competed in had less than 8 competitors and did not have more than one round. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Aren't you the one who says GNG trumps all, yet when article fails GNG you vote keep? How hypocritical is that? Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Not at all. If an article meets gng, it's generally good. A sport-specific criterion like WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NTRACK etc can certainly override it for establishing notability. I don't see that sport-specific criteria would remove notability from an otherwise notable subject. Do you? Jacona ( talk) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
IIRC, you have in the past said GNG overrides sport-specific criterion. So which one is right? Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 12:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply
They must meet one or the other. I think you know that. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Smartyllama. At least in this article it is plausible that the nominator made an effort to perform WP:BEFORE. There have been many nominations recently showing a complete lack of diligence, a complete disrespect for the time of the community, and a tremendous WP:BIAS against non-English (particularly Asian) athletes. This article is, in my opinion, worthy of debate. It's the sort of article we should be discussing, not those of athletes legendary in their home countries. And Sportsfan 1234, you've nominated several of those athletes. Jacona ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for explicitly failing WP:NTRACK. The rule is as follows: [Must have] finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields [in Commonwealth Games, etc]. Yet, the subject of the article, as the article itself informs us, "was selected for the England team for the 2018 Commonwealth Games," and that "was her first appearance at a senior event." Emphasis added. Try as we might (or even desire, since her courage is admirable), the subject does not meet the notability criteria. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I hate to say it, but to do otherwise would be because I like her, rather in line with the notability setup. It's given above, but in a (supposedly) clearer breakdown
Q1) Did she compete in either the Olympics or the relevant world championships? A - No
Q2) Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships? A - Yes
Q3) Did those events contain either several heats or extended fields? A - No
Without either Q1 or Q2 and Q3 being Yes, it fails. Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Ross-c: because her event only had 7 competitors at her level - no heats, it was directly in a final, as far as the beeb indicates. The event needs either a big field (probably 15+) or heats. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Nosebagbear: - where is that requirement listed in WP:NTRACK???? Ross-c ( talk) 21:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
"Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields" @ Ross-c Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Sportsfan 1234: - I read that as characterising the games (e.g. Commonwealth Games) as a whole, not in excluding exceptional events within them. Typically, events in the Commonwealth Games have heats etc. Otherwise, you could try and remove a gold medalist. Ross-c ( talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Ross-c: I could be mis-interpreting your argument, in which case forgive me, but that would seem to cause case disparity - some events (and the athletes within them) would have a much easier ride, just because most other events within the overall competition had heats etc. To me the "individual events within this competition" clarifies that the heats/fields are additional requirements binding events within the given competitions.
With regards to this argument wiping out medalists who fell afoul of the heats, point 3 would seem to cover them (Top 3 of other major senior level competitions, which the Commonwealth events that didn't fall into the general Commonwealth coverage would seem to be). Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I read it as did Ross-c, but I understand Nosebagbears point as well. I believe that if we go through history at major events, even in the Olympics we will find some cases where there were events that didn't have multiple heats. I believe we still consider the winners notable because the stature of the games, and I think that is what the guideline is trying to convey. Jacona ( talk) 12:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • (column reset) - We do indeed consider those in the Olympic/World Championships notable, irrespective of heat status. Presumably this is primarily because of game stature, though it might also be because for the Olympics, at least, the qualification level to enter is much higher, regardless of country. Commonwealth deliberately wasn't put in that top group, which would seem to indicate it wasn't supposed to have a "stature is sufficient" case. I must note of course that I am far from a WP:NTRACK expert - it's probably only the second or third time I've used it as a justification (either way), let alone was involved in the RFC that created them. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). There is a lack of notability because of a lack of sourcing. To me there is something wrong with the idea of supporting the creation (or the keeping) of an undersourced WP:BLP using mainly primary sources that produces a stub pseudo biography. "Just" making an appearance at a national or international event, leading to a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, is dependant on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Primary sources do not advance notability so secondary sources are required. Usually placing 4th or 6th place may create some immediate fame but notability is not fleeting or passing. Only the individual, family, team members, or Wikiprojects will remember someone placing 4th or 6th. This seems to be forgotten sometimes in a quest to have all possible subjects covered on Wikipedia. This subject has three references and two are primary with one (BBC) secondary for the one event. This lack of sourcing fails several instances of the "Five pillars": "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons", so these watered down exemptions ("it fails several policies or guidelines but passes WP:NTRACK so we should keep") should not matter. Otr500 ( talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I could not find any sources after trying for quite awhile so fails WP:GNG and subsequently also fails WP:NTRACK. - DJSasso ( talk) 14:29, 14 May 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. Closing 1 day ahead of & day deadline as consensus is obvious (non-admin closure)  —  F R + 08:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad

Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be self promoted organization with little independent mention. G ( talk) 06:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 07:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I think these two source mention it in passing, they do not cover the subject of the article. -- G ( talk) 05:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply
None of the sources talk about the institute but the post holders in the institute are notable, that may or may not qualify the institute as notable. -- G ( talk) 04:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ G: Do you mean above sources don't discuss the 'institute' in-depth and the newspaper articles' topic of discussion should be only and only 'this institute' in their entire article? I ask anyone and everyone to 'Google' for it and see what happens? Maybe that entirely exclusive article that one is looking for does not exist. I already tried very hard and, believe me, my best but could not find it. So this was the best I could do. All above-mentioned newspaper reference sources mention the 'Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad' at least once. True, they discuss the already notable personalities that have worked and served this government-funded institute much more. Let's not forget that I have already used references from 3 independent English-language newspapers for this article. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 15:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Ngrewal1 and Gbohoadgwwian: Ngrewal1: you pinged me instead of Gbohoadgwwian. Your ping did not reach him. -- 𝔊 ( Gradzeichen Diſk ✉ Talk) 16:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on account of deep and wide notability of its subject. Also, many notable personalities serve as functionaries. - The Gnome ( talk)
  • Keep Although the article needs copyediting, there's enough references to show passing notability. Also it has been improved and now looks quite different from the shoddy version that was nominated for deletion. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:40, 17 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Constant314 ( talk) 03:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The Joy of Science

The Joy of Science (  | 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 site seems to be entirely for promotion of a commercial product. Constant314 ( talk) 16:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:15, 11 May 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 procedural close per WP:BLOCKEVASION ( non-admin closure) — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 00:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Oliver McGee

AfDs for this article:
Oliver McGee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability Austinpete ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:16, 11 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Nadim M Nsouli

Nadim M Nsouli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The first three refs do so seem to mention this person; the fourth does but is run of the mill business coverage. The rest? I would be surprised if they are much better. Possibly the eigth would establish notability for his late daughter, altho I'd argue against it. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

been moved to a user draft as I was nominationg for deletion. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 15:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches turned up very little about him, the in-depth pieces were press releases, other than that, only trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Have a look at the fifth reference ( [1] This appeared in the Education Inverstor Global magazine and contains an in-depth analysis of the organisation that Nsouli founded, indicating its prominence in the fields of education and business. One needs to be a subscriber to access the article. What advice can you give in using sources of this sort? G Studio's Editor ( talk) 11:23, 14 May 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 speedy deleted G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 21:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Egger Mielberg

Egger Mielberg (  | 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 indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources. Google News doesn't give a single result. Huon ( talk) 15:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 08:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Heroes of the Environment

Heroes of the Environment (  | 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 award ran for just three years, 2007-2009, then disappeared without comment. The only significant independent coverage I can find is an article in The Guardian of 22 Oct 2017. Also Heroes of the Environment (2007), Heroes of the Environment (2008), and Heroes of the Environment (2009). Edwardx ( talk) 13:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Edwardx ( talk) 13:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This short-lived award was notable at the time. Searches in gScholar on "Heroes of the Environment" + Time magazine (here: [5], show one INDEPTH article discussing this award, and many brief mentions of it in discussions of individuals to whom it has been given. A proquest news archive search get so many hits along the lines of: Mike Pandey named Environment Hero by Time magazine, Hindustan Times; New Delhi [New Delhi]01 Oct 2009, ("Well-known wildlife conservationist Mike Pandey has been named an 'Environmental Hero' by Time magazine as part of its Heroes of the Environment 2009...",) that I suspect we could source every individual listed as a winner to an article generated by the awarding of the prize. Also note the large number of incoming links from other pages. Frankly, I fail to see the point of deleting this. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, notability isn't inherited from the magazine, and even they dropped it. Szzuk ( talk) 19:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 14:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary, and notability established by sources now in article. Sounds like it was developed during this AFD, i am not checking. I doubt that the overall importance is lessening for awards programs and other programs related to the environment. It will be good for Wikipedia to carry some memory of this particular program, to put others into perspective. By the way, since the program terminated and the amount of content won't continue to grow, it may be possible to design a nice table with three columns that will combine the info about the three years, without it becoming unwieldy. Editors interested in the topic could create such a table and merge the three separate year articles into the main article, so there's just one article, but that is for after the AFD. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:50, 10 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Medicine: Prep Manual for Undergraduates

Medicine: Prep Manual for Undergraduates (  | 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 fulfill guidelines in WP:NBOOK. Natureium ( talk) 14:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:NBOOK. I can't find any reviews of this textbook online, just a listing at the publisher's site, Amazon/Goodreads, and a few mentions of "how can I download this book as a free PDF" on Quora etc. I can't find any reviews in WP:RS, and can't find mentions or citations in other books in GBooks or JStor. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 15:06, 17 May 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 speedy redirect to Estrela Vermelha (Beira). Withdrawing deletion nom and speedily redirecting instead. Thanks everyone for your input. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Estrella Beira

AfDs for this article:
Estrella Beira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't PROD because it was included in a WP:TRAINWRECK bundle nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma nearly 10 years ago.

I can't find the slightest indication that this club exists, or has any claim to notability even if it does. This this list of champion football clubs from Mozambique doesn't list their name. This list of stadiums in Mozambique doesn't show one simply called "Estadia" with a capacity of 8000 as claimed in the article. No other hits for the club name aside from WP mirrors.

Hell, I can't even find evidence that the supposed "Mocambola3" league exists. The only hits anywhere for "Mocambola3" are WP and WP mirrors, which is worrying. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 09:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't love the notability of that article either, but I'm fine with a redirect if there's no consensus to delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per GiantSnowman. RSSSF has plenty of mentions of the Estrela Vermelha ("Red Star") football club based in Beira, Sofala Province in Mozambique's post-independence era (e.g., [6]), and none of a club named "Estrella Beira" (which is most likely a typo and a shortening of the club's full name). Jogurney ( talk) 19:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment actually Portuguese Wikipedia has an article here but is unreferenced and states it was established in 1943 and plays in the 3ª Divisão do Campeonato Moçambicano de Futebol.But could not find any source. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:07, 14 May 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 Withdrawn. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) [ Username Needed 08:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Atlantic, Suwannee River and Gulf Railway

Atlantic, Suwannee River and Gulf Railway (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In Category:Suspected wikipedia hoaxes, no sources in article, google only returned one unreliable source. [ Username Needed 12:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It looks like article was created in 2004 and nothing was really added past that. Looking at the workflow of User:SPUI - nothing malicious. Just something that never was touched? Looking for anything to grab as a source and I see Suwannee River Railway Company was established but nothing materialized as far with physical railroads. [7] – TheGridExe ( talk) 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I knew someone could find something. More than we had. Not sure it helps notability. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 02:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 04:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. The first hits on Google Books return contemporary legislation confirming the claims of the article. See for example [8]. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Great find! I agree with above, speedy keep based on this. As stated before, this is going to require some resource digging. It's just the article needs to be reformatted to today's standards and hopefully there's no overlap with other related articles. (Why was the hoax label tagged on it? ) – TheGridExe ( talk) 13:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
As the admin who dettaged that, I gotta say it beats me.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 14:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't know of any Florida railroads that were not eventually swallowed up by Seaboard. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 04:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe ( talk) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Reply - There were other swallowed up by Atlantic Coast Line, Louisville and Nashville, and Florida East Coast. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 11:22, 13 May 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. Enigma msg 05:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Richard De Angelis

Richard De Angelis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Nactor, biggest role is being a minor character on The Wire 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk 11:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:05, 10 May 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. Enigma msg 21:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Rob Rom

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

Already tagged for notability, appears to fail WP:NMUSIC Gbawden ( talk) 11:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Struck sock !vote. -- Dane talk 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:06, 10 May 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. Closing 1 day ahead of 7 day deadline as consensus is obvious (non-admin closure)  —  F R + 08:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Unrest

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

Not an article. A glorified disambiguation page. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:22, 10 May 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sandro Skansi

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. Article created and exclusively maintained by SPA, presumed to be the article subject. Yunshui  雲 水 08:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Dear Yunshui, please consider editing and updating rather than deleting. I think Wikipedia needs people producing content and not deleting content, and I have been addressing issues with this article almost on a daily basis, alone. Two users and a bot have asked for deletion, and yet no one even bothered to read the stub to correct the typos. It is normal for an article to be started by one user and initially modified by that user alone, especially since it is not a hot topic, and I am puzzled why you think this is inappropriate. There are many examples of such articles. If the community takes your initiative, I welcome it, since I am tired of this edit war which Cabayi started. SciFiZg ( talk) 09:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
How does a bot suggest deletion of articles? I'm not aware of such a process. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Notability wise, subject fair and square meets the requirements, however, I still would like more evidence on his topic of work, I am solely saying he passes notability via his merits, but the article needs to improve. || Regards / 12LA 11:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC) struck !vote by block-evading sockpuppet Yunshui  雲 水 10:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree about the need to expand information on subject's work field. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on account of satisfying notability criteria. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the sources provided are a list of his books, two retail opportunities to buy his books, and a biography of someone sharing his surname. It's the barest squeak above BLPPROD and does nothing to show that anyone, other than him and his publisher, has found him notable. Cabayi ( talk) 17:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Greetings. If the subject's "above BKLPPROD" this means it can stay up, even if by the "barest squeak." Or did you mean something else? - The Gnome ( talk) 18:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
The Gnome, it means that the links to his publications prove that he's a real person and clears the very low hurdle for WP:BLPPROD, it does not show that he's in any way notable, nor that he meets any of the established criteria for demonstrating notability. In particular, as an associate professor, he doesn't meet any of the notability standards for academics at WP:NACADEMIC. Cabayi ( talk) 05:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the explanation. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:04, 15 May 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. So Why 08:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The Principles of Exercise Therapy

The Principles of Exercise Therapy (  | 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 sources except Google Books page on itself, possible promotion of book. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 08:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Pending - this would have a logical contender for WP:BOOKPROD but now that it's here. Under WP:NBOOK point 1 which requires 2 notable reviews - unless they are hidden in pubmed or such (I did do several searches, but nothing relevant appeared), I couldn't find suitable reviews. No other point seemed viable Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Hey Nosebagbear - BOOKPROD only covers Wikipedia:Books. There have been multiple attempts to create speedy criteria for books, but so far there's been no consensus. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
That makes much more sense - I had wondered when I first heard of it that I couldn't see why books were so special as to have their own PROD. Clearly a reason that my deleting/keeping work is spent in AfD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
No problem - I'd gotten excited a little that there may be a new deletion format for books that could help deal with obviously non-notable books. There's not, but hey - may be one day. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NBOOK. If someone does manage to find evidence of notability, it would need to be TNT'd anyway because it's very difficult to read as is. "Exercise also helps to reduce mental retardation and reduce the risk of mental retardation in the exercise. It is essential to exercise immune organs or adequate vascular organs in a coherent blood circulation." Huh? Natureium ( talk) 14:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Have shifted to pending. The reviews, while clearly very specialist, would seem to satisfy point 1 in WP:NBOOK. Anyone have a good case, otherwise? Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Snowball keep and WP:TROUT. Multiple book reviews (in the sort of scholarly journals that are the best sources possible for something like this) satisfy GNG and NBOOK. The number of editions alone would satisfy TBK. "Specialist publications" is not a valid argument, has no basis in policy or guideline, and is totally unacceptable because would result in Wikipedia being dumbed down into a children's encyclopedia for babies of low intelligence. All genuinely reliable sources are "specialist" in the sense being used here, because only those sources are written by people with adequate academic credentials. Indeed WP:TBK explains at some length why the "specialist" argument cannot be used. The other arguments are WP:SOFIXIT. A search for "The Principles of Exercise Therapy"+review brings up additional book reviews such as the South African Journal of Physiotherapy [11]. James500 ( talk) 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ...breathe James500. Given the state of the article when it was submitted, even WP:SOFIXIT fell through the floor , though it is an actual functional state now thanks to its creator and ReaderofthePack. Personally I find the "Number of Eds" bit of WP:TXTBKS an indication of downright desperation in notability sourcing, given its citation numbers for various versions will be accessible, and can be checked either by me when I get some time or anyone else feeling generous. In any case, I believe the refs are fine (in that you are right, if anything academic refs should be judged more highly, though I suppose assessing true lack of COI is even harder, AGF applies externally, too). Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
(1) Counting the number of editions is the traditional way of assessing the level of sales that a book has achieved. The logic is that if a book goes through lots of editions this normally means it is selling lots of copies. And if it is selling, it normally also follows that it is highly regarded, because the academics, librarians and professionals/practitioners who buy these types of works, and who prepare course reading lists for students, are capable of differentiating a good book from a bad one. (2) My understanding is that GScholar citation counts are of limited use for older works. For example, GScholar does not provide an accurate citation count for some nineteenth century textbooks because it simply does not seem to know about most of the reviews and citations. I suspect you might have similar problems for books first published in the 1950s, like this one, long before the internet became popular. In any event, I think the citations I can see listed there are sufficient anyway. James500 ( talk) 15:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Editions has nothing to do with how many copies are sold. It is based on updates to the material. Natureium ( talk) 16:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
No, I am afraid you are in error. Try searching for "number of editions"+popularity or "number of editions"+success in GBooks and you come up with a large number of sources, like this one all saying the same thing. Likewise it has been said that "No fairer way can be devised of judging of an author's popularity, than by taking the number of editions which have been published of his works" [12] (quoting this mainly because its public domain; the copyrighted sources all say the same thing). And since we know the average number of copies for an edition [13], we can use the number of editions to estimate the level of sales. The bottom line is that a publisher will not normally print a new edition of a book if the last edition sold poorly. Because he normally wants to make money, and needs to sell as many copies as possible to do that. James500 ( talk) 21:21, 11 May 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. Enigma msg 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Amethyst Deceivers

Amethyst Deceivers (  | 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 satisfy WP:NSONG FamblyCat94 ( talk) 05:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 12:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS in just about every respect. Browsing through the article history, the article has never been anything more than an unsourced bulletpoint list of times it was released, including its first release (an EP), and then re-released (a bunch of non-notable live albums and compilations). It doesn't not appear to have been released as a single, or charted. No information about the song itself is actually given. It's not an encyclopedia article even, just some random release notes. It's been redirected by two separated editors for being non-notable, only to be reverted on invalid grounds of it being "interesting" (which is a bit of a stretch no matter what your standards are, for a bare-bones release history listing.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - In addition to what has already been said, lots of bands stretch out the market with multiple compilations and live albums, and it is natural that their top songs will appear again and again. That does not indicate the need for a list article in WP. The band's article can mention the fact that this song has been re-released and re-worked many times. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. It's eight years since a redirect was last made; I would have tried with a categorized {{ R from song}} to album article Autumn Equinox: Amethyst Deceivers per policy, and I won't mind if somebody does it post-AfD. Sam Sailor 20:54, 16 May 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. Consensus obvious no need to wait another day (non-admin closure)  —  F R + 08:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Rahul Pandita

Rahul Pandita (  | 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 journalist fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage found. The article was created in 2013, so I have reverted the draftification for an AfD to occur. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Prominent journalist and writer, won awards, received book reviews. Please keep in mind that Indian news sources are not showing up on Google News at present. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
We cannot rely, though, on personal testimony alone about a subject's notability. Let's not forget that notability-in-Wikipedia (or, as I like to call it, Wikinotability) is not the same as notability the way we commonly understand the term. Wikipedia demands proof through sources; in real life, it suffices that we know. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC). reply
I added a whole bunch of sources yesterday, in the Further reading section. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:50, 11 May 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 Lil Jon. So Why 08:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

BME Recordings

BME Recordings (  | 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 record group, No evidence of any notability, Realistically this could be merged into the Lil Jon article but i'll leave that up to the community, Anyway Fails GNG, – Davey2010 Talk 03:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:37, 10 May 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 Shawn Mendes. Ping if turned into an article while still TOOSOON for revert & protect ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Shawn Mendes: The Tour

Shawn Mendes: The Tour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, I don't know what other venue there is for this but I'm "AF"ing this, rather than AFDing, as it's a tour that hasn't even started yet and has no coverage other than "these are the dates" which means as of yet it's not notable on it's own but likely will be and considering it's a full year away, means that it's a place holder but the creator keeps removing the redirect, so I am proposing, until a closer time and more coverage has been received that this is redirected to the main article. (And also on the basis that this isn't a directory) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:37, 10 May 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. Enigma msg 03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Mack

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

Woefully inadequately sourced article. Searches turned up thousands of hits, but couldn't find any about this artist, apparently it's a pretty common name. Clearly does not meet WP:FILMMAKER, and not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are a few things that could establish notability. However, the first one I checked (10 pieces in the Baltimore art museum collection) turns out to be untrue. When I see such puffery and outright deception, I say delete. 104.163.159.237 ( talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I also tried to verify the Baltimore Museum, and I couldn't. This would be the main thing that would establish. I also find it troubling that the body of work supposedly exhibited at BM was co-authored, but his collaborator is not mentioned. Theredproject ( talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The above are deleting valid reliable sources based on a mischaracterization of WP:V. Verifiability means we must verify that the SOURCE says what the ARTICLE says. In the case of the source removed by 104.163.159.237, the source says what the article says. You can't negate a reliable source by performing original research. EnPassant ( talk) 14:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply
An informative tidbit from the editor formerly known as Gigglesnorthotel! 104.163.137.171 ( talk) 05:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply
What's that have to do with your attempts to delete reliable sources based on original research? EnPassant ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 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. Enigma msg 08:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Aristide Sawadogo

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

Disputed PROD. Subject fails WP:NHOOPS, and does not pass the GNG. A profile on NBA.com doesn't count as independent or secondary coverage for the purposes of GNG. The FIBA article is only one source, and the WaPo article is a trivial name-drop. It's not enough to hang a GNG pass on. I haven't located any other independent, in-depth, reliable sources about the subject. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

For someone who didn't play in the NBA, NBA.com is both independent and secondary.-- TM 00:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
How does that work? He was in the NBA draft, he just didn't get picked. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
No, NBA.com is never going to be an independent source - its sole purpose is to promote the league and its events - including the NBA draft. Independent would be the St. Louis Dispatch or USA Today or NBC Sports or Sports Illustrated. If this guy passes WP:GNG, these types of sources should be relatively easy to find. Rikster2 ( talk) 12:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Editorofthewiki, anything published by Books LLC is a compilation of Wikipedia or Wikia articles and therefore can't be used as a source or an indication of notability. If you're going to vote keep with a claim that news sources exist, it's basic etiquette to link to them. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up, I did not know that and I will keep that in mind in the future. Striking my keep vote since most of the newspaper articles were routine anyway. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 17:38, 11 May 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 with a side of horseradish. Enigma msg 08:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INHERITED, WP:1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This child lived a couple of days, and not trying to sound callous, but the only thing he did is die a Kennedy. And an infant Kennedy, at that. Any notability he had was because of who is parents were, and that alone is not enough to meet WP:GNG.

Per policy: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Other than the importance the infant's death held to his parents and other family, there is no importance attached to the death itself. A personal tragedy for the family, yes - but not a tragedy that affected anything beyond general, momentary sympathy for the family from those who read about it in the newspaper.

Worth a section in the Kennedy Family article, worth content inclusion in the JFK and Jackie Kennedy articles, but not worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article because it only has emotional and dramatic, not encyclopedic, value. Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of novellas. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, and I don't understand why we have to go through a sixth nomination on this. The fifth was beating a dead horse already. Ample reasons were given why the guidelines cited in the nomination don't apply. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. The subject was widely covered through two major events—his birth and his death—and besides that he is an index case still used and cited in the medical field. -- Laser brain (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
"Nothing has changed since the last nomination." Correct. The article subject didn't get any more notable and neither did the fact of his birth and death. And it won't. Because it's a 1E and notability is inherited article, that's why. It's not possible for the article subject to ever reach the notability required to meet WP:GNG. At least with article subjects who actually lived a life before they died, or those who are dead and can gain notability, there's an argument for keeping the article because it can evolve. This article will never evolve past being 1E. "The subject was widely covered through two major events—his birth and his death" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Just because something is "covered" (widely or otherwise) that doesn't make it encyclopedic subject matter. Plenty of things are covered widely by news on a day-to-day basis. Do we make encyclopedia articles about these things simply because they have been "covered widely"? Considering such, where's the Wikipedia article on today's celebrity gossip covered all over the internet (today's version of "news coverage")? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this by all reasonable measures is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. There was nothing of long-lasting encyclopedic value outside of perhaps living for less than 48 hours. There's also WP:NOTGENEALOGY to keep in mind as well as WP:NOTMEMORIAL from WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a Presidential family history site or a Kennedy family history site yet many people sadly are too often overly lenient in opting to keep articles like this just because of family affiliations or a singular passing event that only affects a certain group of people (family in this case) for very long. The sheer number of references discussing him doesn't change this and mentioning them seems like WP:MASK. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 03:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The nomination claims this was "not a tragedy that affected anything beyond general, momentary sympathy for the family". But that's clearly false. I'll let the authors of this paper, published in Neonatology explain why: "The death of the son of the American President accelerated the development and deployment of infant ventilators, micro-blood gas analysis and umbilical artery catheterization, and led to the development of intensive care for newborns in the 1960s on both sides of the Atlantic." The expected birth of a child to a sitting President was a significant news story, as was his death. Alone, perhaps, that would be a footnote to the story of his parents. But that journal quote is from 2013. This death changed a major field of medicine. The child involved, as the sum of that change and, yes, the celebrity watchers of the day, is notable. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 04:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
In addition, these discussions often hinge around "lasting impact". Medical research aside, in 2013 the New York Times considered Patrick's story sufficiently important to publish a 50-year retrospective. So did ABC News. Steven Levingston, the Washington Post nonfiction book editor, actually wrote a biography of Patrick! And make no mistake, although that was exclusively e-published, it wasn't self-published; Diversion Books is a legitimate publishing house. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
And the two most recent (4 and 5 years ago) were "no consensus". That long ago and both without a consensus makes this worth looking at again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
No, the most recent was less than 3 years ago, opened by you, and there was no consensus to delete. This means you are unable to accept people's reasons for keeping the article, but that doesn't mean anything has changed. Those reasons still apply. -- Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry, yes - 3 and 4 years ago. Regardless... And no, me accepting/not accepting the reasons of others has nothing to do with this AfD. But, if you want to turn your logic around, perhaps those who insist keep based on the previous keep !votes are unable to accept the previous delete !votes and logical, policy-based rationale behind them? Those logical, policy-based reasons still apply, after all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
That logic doesn't apply. The default state of an article is to be kept unless there is a compelling reason to delete, not the other way around. That's why when an AfD is closed as no consensus, the article is kept. You are incorrectly interpreting and applying the essays and guidelines you are citing. -- Laser brain (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I claim that this is actually incorrect and my claim can be trivially supported. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know why people re-nominate this thinking the outcome is going to be different. But I suspect none of the nominators were alive in 1963 and they lack historical perspective. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy : hyaline membrane disease :: Lou Gehrig : amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. - Nunh-huh 19:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm the nominator here and with the last one. I was very much alive and cognizant in 1963, quite aware of the goings-on in the Kennedy White House and family, remember where I was when the news came on the radio JFK had been shot, watched Ruby kill Oswald, watched the funeral, and so-on. Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything in relation to this nom, policy, and the fact that notability remains uninherited. That you're attempting to use emotion to determine whether the article should stay only proves the point that policy and true encyclopedic quality is being abandoned in Wikipedia daily for invective and emotion-driven decision making by those who see themselves as encyclopedia editors. Makes no sense. By the way, Lou Gehrig's notability came from baseball, his disease was secondary and would have gone unnoticed by the public had he not been a professional athlete. JFK's infant son who died - his notability stems from his parents, not the cause of his death. Ask the average person what the child died from and they wouldn't be able to tell you. Has HMD been nicknamed after Patrick Kennedy as in "Lou Gehrig's Disease? The answer, of course, is 'no'. QED: the child's notability is inherited, period. And that's against notability policy, in case you forgot. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, so you don't have the excuse of being recently born to explain your repeated nomination. I don't see anything in my comments here that's emotional, and much in yours that is. Your "logic", however, is faulty and specious, and I am unpersuaded by it. - Nunh-huh 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and whatever the opposite of salt is. I have no opinion on the merits, but five refused nominations is more than enough.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The last sentence of the lede invalidates all the nominator’s arguments: “the Kennedy infant's death brought hyaline membrane disease (HMD) into the public consciousness and inspired further research.” Pawnkingthree ( talk) 00:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (a) on account of independent notability as evidenced by the opening paragraph, and separately (b) as a matter of principle. Five nominations!? When do we stop AfDs for the same article? After 100 nominations? The mind boggles. - The Gnome ( talk)
  • Keep the event (of a child of the sitting President of the United States dying in infancy) is notable, as the multitude of references suggest. I don't really see the point of renaming it so it's not technically a biography. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Are you referring to the idea of a Death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy page rather than simply a page with his name by the "renaming it so it's not technically a biography" bit? It wouldn't exactly be an unheard of practice given things like Murder of Ennis Cosby. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 06:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I would oppose such a change. The first birth of a child to a sitting President and First Lady in over a century was itself a topic of considerable media attention. Alone, that might not have earned Patrick notability, but in the wider context, it means the article should not be exclusively titled about his death. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 14:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
SNUGGUMS, I think that is an excellent idea and solution. The child's 36 hour life doesn't merit a biography article. If his death did, indeed, spark more research and/or public awareness re: the condition he died from, that merits an article. How do you propose we go about getting this change made? Do it from here? From the article talk page with an RfC?
Squeamish Ossifrage, biographical articles are supposed to be an account of someone's life. It wasn't the infant's life that meant something, it was his death. A title change in this case is quite appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Looking at that Cosby article as well as Murder of Martha Moxley, what one should do is place emphasis on the death above all else. Something we could do in this case is have text along the lines of "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy died on August 9, 1963 after living for only two days" and then discuss what led to him dying so soon and perhaps the response it prompted. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
This solves the problem of it being a biography encyclopedia article, as there's simply no biography there (which has always bothered me and been the reason why I've nominated it this time and previously). It also solves the need to have the story "out there" from the medical research and development aspect. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
Levingston certainly disagrees, since he published what is essentially a biography of this subject. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
I also oppose such a renaming. It is not necessary and places the focus exclusively on his death. Kablammo ( talk) 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
His death is the only thing about him specifically as a person that's truly worth noting at all, though, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
A title in Wikipedia ought to be something that someone can know how to look up. In order to look something up, you shouldn't have to guess what a title a random Wikipedian has concocted for it; you should simply look up what it logically would be called. Why should someone have to guess that an article about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is called, say "The death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy" vs. "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy's effect on neonatal healthcare" vs. "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy's impact on medical research"? It's also a bit odd to say that someone's death isn't part of his biography, since it clearly is. There are plenty of people with articles here who are known mostly because of the circumstances of their deaths. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 12 May 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.
  1. ^ http://www.educationinvestor.co.uk/AccessDenied.aspx?ReturnUrl=/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=5618&search=inspired
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_May_10&oldid=1142615659"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE