Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 September 29 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Tomorrow's Company

AfDs for this article:
Tomorrow's Company (  | 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 organization does not meet notability guidelines. There is no significant coverage in independent sources. Cited sources include little more than passing mentions. One of The Guardian articles is actually written by the organization's founder. Three of the article's main contributors are single purpose accounts that have been blocked as sockpuppets. The article has already been deleted twice as the result of the two previous AFDs. Does WP:CSD#G4 apply? ANDREVV ( talk) 22:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:04, 29 September 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. Something that doesn't exist, and may not exist in the future. As pointed out, WP:CRYSTAL/ WP:TOOSOON applies, especially when the sources are well out of date. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Zhonghe mine

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

Proposed for deletion in 2014 but objected on the basis that the title was wrong. There is still no evidence that there is a large (or any other) open pit mine with any reserves or measured resource. http://www.wise-uranium.org/uona.html#ZHONGHE "At a glance, this project does not look feasible with current uranium prices." http://www.mining.com/mysterious-uranium-project-partially-revealed-in-namibia-94905/ Scott Davis Talk 04:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The very source you offer as evidence of lack of notability does just the opposite. You cherry pick a quote, but fail to say it goes on to write "...it is very likely that this uranium mine will be commissioned in the foreseeable future". Spinning Spark 12:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Additionally, there is substantial coverage in [2] and it gets a paragraph or so in [3], [4] (in German) and [5]. Spinning Spark 12:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - http://www.namibianuranium.org/zhonge-resources/ is about investigations, not actual specific mining - I have been a geological assistant in the past, and I am sorry I find it very hard to accept that any investigation ever constitutes a resultant actual mine. Here in Western Australia where I live - uranium deposit investigations mean nothing... such investigations can constitute clarification of deposits - snd newspaper reports - but that never actually specifically designates a resultant mining operation - the factors against actual mining operations are many. If the article was about the deposit - that is a totally different matter. JarrahTree 13:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    That's a good case for renaming the page. It's not a good case for deletion. Spinning Spark 15:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Description why PROD was objected, is incorrect. The reason for deletion was given "Not a mine. Exploration property" and this was objected on the basis that incorrect title is not a sufficient reason for deletion without using other tools (move etc) beforehand. It would be probably better to rename it the the Zhonghe uranium project. Beagel ( talk) 13:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SpinningSpark. We don't delete articles just because they need to be renamed. James500 ( talk) 17:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 22:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, if at all. The reserves at Zhonghe are not a significant percentage of Namibian uranium reserves. The article says Zhonghe represents one of the largest uranium reserves in Namibia but this is just not true. In fact it has less reserves than any other Namibian uranium mine, except Langer Heinrich, which while almost played out, its ore has twice the concentration of uranium that Zhonghe has. Also, there is no evidence that actual mining is taking place at Zhonghe. It seems that trenching, geological research and geophysical surveying are not yet complete. Zhonghe Resources In the April 2013 article in the Namibian Sun "Details emerge around Zhonge Uranium" said that there was still a long way to go before the realisation of the project. In December 2016 a manager for Zimabawe government said Zhonge Resources presented its showcase uranium project. Still requires a whole lot of geotechnical & admin beef up to turn around potential. In October 2017 the Namib Times indicated that Low uranium price continues to present major challenge and still listed Zhonghe as an exploration project. There is no mine yet. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
It may or may not be the case of WP:TOOSOON but the fact that the is no mine yet is irrelevant for the deletion discussion. There is an uranium mining project as confirm by the sources you provided and if they satisfy WP:GNG, it is enough. The issue of the article's title, if wrong, should be decided by WP:RM discussion. Beagel ( talk) 09:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete After I just removed an unsupported (grossly exaggerated) claim from this article, the only sentence that remains is that Zhonghe is a mine in Erongo. But this is not true. There is no mine. There is a company, Zhonghe Resources, which has been granted a mining license. The sources listed above are about the company, which in all likelihood is not in Erongo. What is there in Erongo, is an area of deposits that have been analysed. As a company, Zhonghe does not reach notability, that's why renaming is not an option, either. -- Pgallert ( talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The discussion has been focused to the size of uranium deposit and speculations if the mine will be opened or not. This is not relevant for this discussion: the project exists and ironically sources establishing its (weak but still) notability is provided by opponents themselves. I added some of them to the article and expanded the text. Therefore, keep per SpinningSpark. Need to be renamed is not a valid reason for deletion. Beagel ( talk) 09:54, 6 October 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Hammad Safi

AfDs for this article:
Hammad Safi (  | 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 columnist and blogger. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Only 3 sources, and they merely mention him as an 11 years old professor. Even considering the age, notability is not met because all the sources mention about the same thing, "his age". The previous nomination for deletion was closed as "keep" although the voters didn't talk about how the article meets Wikipedia Guidelines. The only reason for their votes was that it passes GNG, although it clearly doesn't. How is the coverage about just one single event enough? Knightrises10 ( talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I was working on an AfD nomination for this article when I noticed another one had already been created, so I'll add my rationale here: A biography about a child; there are a few sources but I do not believe that he meets WP:GNG yet. Of the three sources, two are based on the same text (not sure if it is a press release, but they cite the same people using the exact same phrasing), and the third is a very brief interview of the subject. That does not amount to significant coverage. He is not a university lecturer, as claimed in some earlier versions of the article; the University of Spoken English and Computer Science is a language school which uses Safi quite prominently in their advertising (it seems that he he is part of the staff for their programme for children) but it's not an institution of tertiary education. -- bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable columnist, motivational speaker and blogger. Vorbee ( talk) 07:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP I may even argue a Speedy jeep. He meets criteria. Just look at the over 2000 news article mentions here. I went through the first few pages. He has more than enough coverage, his age makes him notable. There maybe only 3 references in the article, does not mean that there are only 3 sources. The article needs to be expanded. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
What 2000 news articles would that be? When I click that link I'm taken to a page with 96 hits, and the 12 first links I clicked on were verbatim or slightly re-hashed versions of the same press release that's already in the article (that's also easily seen by the fact that the same press kit photos are used in most of them). If you have specific sources that meet WP:RS, by all means provide them here or add them to the article, but please don't link to a page of search hits, it's not a viable argument. And being young is not part of any notability criteria on Wikipedia. -- bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ TheGreatWikiLord: Is there any guideline which says age makes a person notable? Please let me know too. Secondly, all the news sources mention just a single thing. They are written almost same. Thirdly, I can assure you being a Pakistani myself, the videos about that child were circulated as a publicity stunt. You are free to expand the article, but I am sure you won't find anything which will make him pass GNG. Knightrises10 ( talk) 18:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Knightrises10: @ Bonadea: If you click this, you will see over 2000 hits. At least I do when I click it. He has enough coverage. It has nothing to do with Pakistan or age, as long as there is coverage he is notable. There IS coverage, hence notable. So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 20:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
That's the same link as before, so my previous comment stands. -- bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Here is a screenshot, not sure why you are not seeing the over 2000 hits. It says "about 2,500 hits" So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Google doesn't always display identically for different people. I probably get the exact same hits, but without Google's well-documented estimation error: when you get a huge number of hits in a search, the first thing you should always do is go to the last search page (sometimes a multi-step process) and there you will see the actual number of hits. My guess is that I get the correct number, 96, since my settings specify 100 hits per page - if I'd had 20 I would probabiy have seen Google's wild guess. And that's one reason why referring to a Google search page is not very useful in a deletion debate. (I took the liberty of making the image smaller so it doesn't clutter the page). My previous comment stands; reprints of a PR are not independent sources (and not news articles), and note that many of the hits are not in fact about Safi at all, but links displaying his name. -- bonadea contributions talk 05:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Search engine test. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 06:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete No longer convinced. Raymond3023 ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment what we seem to disagree on here is whether the sources can in fact be called WP:SECONDARY. There are three sources currently in the article, where the first one is an AFP press release published in dawn.com; the second one is from ibtimes.co.in and clearly based on the same press release, using the same press kit photos and quoting the same people we saw in the dawn.com source; while the third is a brief promotional blurb written in a sensationalistic tone. In my WP:BEFORE search I looked through quite a few of the search hits, but everything I found was either evidently (to me, at least) churnalism based on the same AFP press release - translated into other languages, which doesn't make it any less of a press release - or brief notices. There is no doubt that this is a talented and charismatic person, but there is also no doubt that there is a marketing team behind him, and when we are talking about a child, I think the requirements for actual secondary sources needs to be extra high. If there are in fact multiple independent sources about him, it would be good if those could be mentioned here or added to the article. -- bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Bonadea: If it is true the articles in the second two sources are based on the press release, I'm inclined to agree with you. I have seen other AfDs with similar characteristics, and I question the ability of the journalists to be completely objective on such reporting. On the other hand, it seems to me that the acceptance of the material in the press release is a deliberate editorial judgment by the secondary source, including any fact-checking required before publishing in the same way any other material is published. That is what inclines my choice above to keep, as it still appears to me the WP:GNG requirement is met. Could you give me two or more other examples at AfD where there were two (or better, even more) reliable secondary sources that were so heavily based on press releases that we rejected the Wiki article's notability? Or is there a discussion anywhere where we take churnalism into account in our decisions on notability. My feeling is that if material based on press releases is a reason to reject secondary sources, we should probably include that in WP:GNG and/or WP:RS if that is going to be the basis of our decisions. I would probably vote in favor of such a proposal. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ David Tornheim: I am travelling this weekend and will respond properly in a couple of days' time when I've had time to look them up, but the short answer is yes, I have seen that argument carried successfully in AfDs - in fact that's where I first heard the term "churnalism". -- bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I look forward to it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I got the answer from DGG here: User_talk:DGG#Question_on_Notability_/_AfD_--_secondary_sources_based_on_a_press_release ( permalink). It's under WP:NCORP (search for "press release") I have changed my vote to delete. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Knightrises10: I pose the same question to you. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Bonadea. All I can see is a bursts of churnalism type news coverage within June 2018 which does not indicate notability. Policy says, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on low profile individuals. Saqib ( talk) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I could only find this paid promotional piece on him in a not so reliable online news website. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ GenuineArt: Will you please read what Bonadea pointed out? He has expalined thoroughly. It is you who needs to read about Guidelines. Knightrises10 ( talk) 19:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I did and it makes no sense since there is no involvement of any "marketing team". Your nomination was misleading since more than three sources provided significant coverage contrary to your claim "Only 3 sources, and they merely mention him". GenuineArt ( talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ GenuineArt: You even need to read or understand the nomination again. they merely mention him as "an 11 years old professor". Those copied-from-Dawn press releases only tell that he is a kid professor, motivational speaker,etc and nothing else notable. I won't even consider them seperate sources! Knightrises10 ( talk) 19:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Knightrises10: I pose the same question to you as I did to Bonadea above. I believe the guidelines as presently written do not make any exception for secondary sources that restate material that can be traced to press releases. If there is such an exception, I might be willing to change my vote. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Evidently, Dawn reported about Safi in June 2018 where as others like ARY News reported about him in 2017. Dawn is just another source that has provided him significant coverage. GenuineArt ( talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
there is no involvement of any "marketing team" - yes there is, because a) the language schools he is connected to uses him in their marketing, and b) the exact same PR pictures are used in almost every source - very obvious press kit. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree that if the language and pics are the same, it is a reasonable assumption it is a result of the work of a PR team, but the question I raise above, which Bonadea says he will respond to, is whether writing in a secondary source which is clearly based on a press release is sufficient to eliminate or diminish its significance in our notability requirements. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
1/The reason press releases do not show notability is straightforward: they are not independent.: the person, or his press agent, or his speak bureau, says whatever they care to. The reason material based on press releases is not reliable for showing notability is pretty much the same: the source took what the publicist said, and repeated it. When a newspaper or similar source does this, it destroys the presumption that what that source says is reliable on that subject. When 2 or 3 sources use exactly the same words, it doesn't make for stronger evidence, it makes each of them much weaker. This is not based only on my own personal opinion, it is our standard practice, unchallenged on thousands of AfD discussions for many years.
2/Furthermore. it is rational for us to be especially demanding in terms of reliable sources for people whose notability is that of a a motivational speaker, life coach, or blogger --these are occupations that are largely based on publicity, where there is rarely any other criterion than how much publicity they get--and that shows not their importance, but the quality of their press agent.
3/And there is yet another factor: extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources: extraordinarily strong sources, not extraordinarily weak ones. . That an 11 year old is actually notable in these professions would be extraordinary. Dawn even called him a "professor" -- the likelihood of that being hype is much higher than of it having any connection to actual `notability or significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 3 October 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 there is clearly no consensus to delete this page, and the relist has allowed the discussion to come to a firmer conclusion than it may previously have appeared to. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Kama Chinen

AfDs for this article:
Kama Chinen (  | 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:BIO1E. Only notable for her age, and 2 out of 3 sources are about her death. The other (Abc news) is probably a list. And I want to repeat what was said at the AFD in 2008 : she and her family had specifically asked the Japanese government to remain anonymous and they respected her wishes » Shadowowl | talk 16:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Please tell me what there is to merge to that other article. There is only one sentence in this article that is actually about her and that would not fit in a list, so just what would we be merging? This article was deleted once before for a reason. Newshunter12 ( talk) 21:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions. Besides one sentence about her health, there is essentially nothing said about her in an article about her that doesn't fit in a list. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, so this article is not needed. Given this individuals apparent obscurity, I think heavy weight should be given to her and her family's desire for anonymity as well. Newshunter12 ( talk) 21:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have limited information about the subject but she is nevertheless notable because of the widespread, global coverage. The threshold for notability on Wikipedia is quite low. See Chitty (cricketer)these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. r better. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • You invalidate your own point by mentioning the cricketer, which played one first-class match and is notable. This person is not notable and she and her familiy specifically asked to not get media attention. Your rationale is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ignoring someones death wishes. The maximum of information that should be given is being mentioned on a list, no need for this article. » Shadowowl | talk 21:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". We don't just have articles about little know figures like Chitty. We also have articles about other similar subjects such as Kane Tanaka and Chiyo Miyako. These were similarly contested recently and are still there. We have clear precendents and so there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Andrew, I don't see how your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS proves in any way that this article should be kept. There is no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is entitled to being notable enough for an article. You're not presenting an actual argument, your just creating keepist noise. Newshunter12 ( talk) 22:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to appropriate list(s), obviously. There's no apparent basis for more than a stub. E Eng 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep This source, published immediately after Baines's death, would seem to discredit the unsourced claim made by the original OP that she requested to remain anonymous and a research group dug and dug until they found out anyway, unless it can be verified that this happened before she became the world's oldest. The present OP is, therefore, based on unsourced speculation, and should be promptly dismissed, unless User:Shadowowl wants to withdraw this nomination before that happens. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Shadowowl: Umm ... can you read Japanese? Or English? I wasn't proposing using the source to expand the article, but (clearly) using it to refute the unsourced (or, rather, Wikipedia-sourced) assertion you made above that she and her family wanted her identity kept private. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. There is no guideline or policy that says "oldest X is notable". If the sources in this article meant she was somehow "notable" then WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here as there is NOTHING to say about her other than she was born, she became the oldest in the world and then she died. That's the entirety of the article bar one sentence about her using a wheelchair and another about who her successor/predecessor was which isn't enough to justify an article. There is never going to be more than six sentences (and two of those strain to pad this article) about her so entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for more or less the same reasons I nominated this page for deletion a decade ago. In terms of sourcing, not much has changed; there is still no evidence of the type of coverage that would be sufficient to meet WP:N. There's nothing here of encyclopedic value that couldn't be reproduced effectively on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Canadian Paul: I'm not that invested in keeping this article one way or the other (I think this AFD should be speedy-closed without prejudice as a result of its being based on a flawed premise, but emphasis on "without prejudice"), but could you provide a source for the claim that Chinen and her family wished to keep her identity private? It seems almost impossible that a private research group "dug and dug" until they found out who she was in the space of a single day after her predecessor in the "oldest in the world" spot passed away (per the source I cited above, this information was readily available within one day), and it seems almost as unlikely that they put that much effort into finding out who she was in advance, based on the assumption that Baines would die before she did. This is all OR, of course, but I'm not arguing for it to be included in the article, just for the article to be kept pending some source that verifies the mutual premise of both your original AFD and the present one. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hijiri88: I'll look for more direct evidence when I have the time (since that was many years ago), but you can see from the first response from the GRG that they more or less confirmed my assertion... they just thought that since they managed to find her name printed years before she turned 110 (and thus asked explicitly to remain anonymous) it was sufficient for Wikipedia. And no, they did not wait to do their digging until she became the world's oldest person... they started more or less when she turned 110 (or maybe a few years later, when her age was even more significant... I'm not sure) and so they knew it long before she became the world's oldest person. There is a small, but robust fanclub around this topic, hence the ARBCOM restrictions on editing this topic and several bans. Canadian Paul 05:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Shadowowl | talk 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I did, I added it to the article. And I would kindly ask that you strike your statement questioning my motives. It is uncalled for. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Ah, the great sources, like a blocked site, a newspaper article of which is unknown if it has ever existed, a dead link, and a subscription article. Great sources, indeed. » Shadowowl | talk 20:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
We have a verified article, available to all, from the Los Angeles Times. Sources do not need to be in English ( WP:NOENG). Sources do not need to be online to meet WP:V ( Wikipedia:Offline sources(. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why an experienced editor such as yourself would make such an argument. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I've looked up the offline source, [9], and it does NOT mention her name! As I said, she requested to be ANONYMOUS, until a group started digging for information!. It does NOT prove why she would need an article, especially because the privacy concern. Would you be fine if I posted your full name, birthdate and everything here after you died? the SAME for the Japanese article ! [10]. And I've read the LA Times article, and it is about another person! Did you even care to read the refs? » Shadowowl | talk 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I was referring to the Bismark article. I discounted the CTV article you mention. (and if used, looks like the citation needs to be updated). The Japanese article does indeed mention her name. My "keep" vote is solely based upon the encyclopedic notability of the topic. I have read the references. I make no claim that any particular source imparts notability by itself, and certainly the LA Times article would not be SIGCOV standing alone. Her life and death were reported by hundreds of newspapers across the globe. I am of the opinion that such coverage is highly indicative of notability, and that general readership is likely to seek encyclopedic information on the topic. You disagree, and that is fine. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare considers women's names, addresses, birthdays, etc. to be unpublished on the basis of their intentions. Those 100 newspapers are probably a lot of sensationalism and false positives due to the Romanian word chimen. The only reason her name is published is because the assholes over at GRG dug that up. » Shadowowl | talk 21:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
If someone is an asshole, is it up to WP to copy the asshole? It does NOT pass GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 21:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Why don't you tell us ? After all you recently claimed to be an asshole on your page so apparently your the expert on the matter. 208.54.36.191 ( talk) 04:00, 29 September 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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

MONTECRISTO (magazine)

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

No evidence that this does, or ever has, met WP:NMAG or WP:GNG. Similar to its sibling publication NUVO (magazine), also presently at AfD, this appears to have been mainly edited by the publication's own staff. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:27, 28 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

A Druid's Duel

A Druid's Duel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources:  "A Druid's Duel" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article does not show sufficient sourcing to meet the WP:GNG (with some WP:REFBOMBing). The only reliable source in the article is the VentureBeat article, and that doesn't even really talk about this game, meaning it does not treat the topic in significance. Finally, the WP:VGSE shows no sources of interest whatsoever. Izno ( talk) 19:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno ( talk) 19:40, 28 September 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 14:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Allison (founder)

Robert Allison (founder) (  | 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 few sentences in the article, which haven't changed meaningfully in eleven years, appear to constitute everything we know about this founder of a township of 1,700, and it all appears to come from a single source. I just don't see this as passing WP:GNG. Mangoe ( talk) 19:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Spinningspark: Please read the sole source and see if you still think a merge is reasonable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Striking my merge suggestion, the sourcing is too thin even for that. If that's all there is in support of this, then delete. Spinning Spark 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Editorofthewiki: Please read the sole source and see if you still think a merge is reasonable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No merge. He was not the founder of the town. He died before the township was created. The sole source says, Robert, Joseph and James Allison, Matthew Kenney, Samuel Gilmore, Hugh McClellan, Henry McConkey, John McDowell, Esq., and John Wilson, Esq., were among the early settlers. That is the totality of source-material. The three commissioners who created the township in January 1837 were Thomas I. Postlethwaite, D. R. Reynolds and Robert Miles. The main mover and shaker who pushed for creation of the township was Mr. Yost King, a Mennonite. There was also a descendant of one of the Allisons named Robert Allison who ran his father's saw mill circa 1886. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sourcing is far too brief to pass GNG and in any case, he was an early settler not a founder of the township. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:52, 7 October 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 delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Laureate (band)

Laureate (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)
Leave a Light On (EP) (  | 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 band. Admittedly, it's hard to search given their common name but even so, I'm unable to find anything that remotely satisfies WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The band is quite popular in the Montreal area, if you search Laureate Band there are many pages hits associated to them. They most recently played at Beaus fest alongside Sloan, Cancer bats and Fred Penner. Perhaps your searching skills need to be brushed up? All that to say, they tour enough and are represented enough online to merit a wikipedia page. - page creator

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only significant reliable source coverage I can find is the Exclaim! album review. Other than that there are a few brief mentions and a couple of articles in university newspapers. None of the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC appear to be satisfied. -- Michig ( talk) 06:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Local popularity in their own hometown is not the Wikipedia inclusion test for a band — since local "popularity" is a vague criterion that literally any musician or band can simply claim to have, just throwing the word "popular" around doesn't accomplish jack split by itself. Rather, getting a band into Wikipedia requires nationalized achievements, like a hit single on the Canadian Hot 100 or a Juno Award or a national tour that generates media coverage. And almost all of the referencing here is either blogs or primary sources, which do not count as evidence of notability at all — the only reference here that's doing anything in terms of building a claim to passing GNG in lieu of not actually passing any NMUSIC criteria is the Exclaim! review, which isn't enough coverage to finish the job of getting them over GNG if all the rest of the sourcing around it is garbage. So no, nothing here is enough. Note that I've also bundled their one EP which also has an article, as if the band doesn't qualify for one their EP automatically can't have one either. Bearcat ( talk) 17:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I doubt that bundling in another article into an AfD two days after it started is acceptable, unless we give them both 7 days starting from today, and you haven't put an AfD notice on that article to point interested editors here. If this article gets deleted, that one would be probably be an A9 candidate anyway. -- Michig ( talk) 18:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
It's allowed, and even if the page is an A9 candidate it has to get noticed before anybody can delete it — A9-eligible albums frequently still malinger for years after their artists get deleted, because nobody's paying attention to them. So it's more appropriate for the album article, if it gets caught in time, to get stapled to the existing AFD discussion to eliminate the possibility of it getting overlooked in the process. Bearcat ( talk) 18:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

They have several reviews and plenty of coverage outside of just exclaim. They've been covered in new noise magazine, punknews.org as well as on CBC. They have more than just one EP as the previous member puts it.. They have a feature length album, as well as a second album coming out shortly. David.palmer99( talk) 10:27, 02 October 2018 (EST)

They have not been "covered" by the CBC; they had a self-created EPK profile on the part of CBC Radio 3's website that used to allow bands with music on the site to post their own self-created EPK profiles. That's not reliable sourcing for the notability of a band, because the band got to put it there themselves (as opposed to having a professional journalist give them coverage, which is the kind of sourcing we're actually looking for). Punknews.org is a web forum, not a reliable source for establishing the notability of a band, and New Noise is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source for establishing the notability of a band. None of those sources help at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:34, 2 October 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) 16:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Russell (rapper)

Russell (rapper) (  | 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:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability are resting almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources rather than reliable source coverage in media. Of the 18 footnotes here, 15 are blogs or social media posts or directly affiliated websites -- and of the just three references that are actually to reliable media, two are brief unsubstantive blurbs. The one citation to the New York Daily News is much stronger than anything else, so that's certainly a start toward making him notable enough for inclusion -- but it doesn't finish the job of getting him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only valid starter source on offer. As always, it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a musician over NMUSIC, it's the quality of the referencing that can be provided to support the truth of the claim -- and the referencing here simply isn't cutting it at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 28 September 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) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Lola Lennox

Lola Lennox (  | 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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are quotes, brief mentions, interviews, Instragram posts, or lack mention of the article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 23:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I strongly and respectfully do not believe this problem exists, as the individual in the article is not lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. The article clearly references multiple independent secondary sources covering the subject as the main topic of discussion-- and these are not just small or local sources. For example, there is a reference from Billboard, perhaps the most major international music news source, in which the subject of this article is the main topic of discussion. She made her first appearance singing with her mother, Annie Lennox (Grammy and Oscar winning musician) in a PBS live performance, and the article headline is "Annie Lennox On Her 'Beautiful' Stage Debut With Daughter In 'Nostalgia' Concert Special". This is not passing mention-- the fact that she was performing was the main topic of the news article. I would also carefully examine the references from The Telegraph 'Just sweet dreams for Annie Lennox's daughter, Lola', the in-depth profile referenced from Teen Vogue, where Lola Lennox is profiled clearly as the main topic of discussion along with her sister Tali Lennox. There is also the reference from Vogue Magazine where Lola Lennox is profiled as the main subject as well. It's all already in the article quite clearly if you look. There are also the stories published by Cosmopolitan, The Express... Lola Lennox is clearly the main topic of discussion, in-depth, from multiple, credible secondary sources that are indeed already referenced. I believe this is already enough to assert notoriety, as the subject has clearly received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It should also be noted that the subject is very famous in the United Kingdom, despite less notoriety internationally, I do not believe this should affect inclusion into Wikipedia. Also of note for anyone about to Google the subject-- she has been recorded as both Lola Lennox and Lola Fruchtmann in the press-- especially in the UK tabloids-- but she is in fact the same person (full name Lola Lennox Fruchtmann, Stage name Lola Lennox). This may make your search for more queries a bit more tricky on first glance. I agree the article does also reference secondary sources where the subject is mentioned but not the main subject-- but these merely fill out more info for the page and do not negate the clearly referenced and demonstrated articles proving notability that I have just discussed. Cheers and much love x- Soulman1125 ( talk) 07:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep I see just enough material specifically devoted to Lola from reliable third-party sources to overcome GNG, but just barely. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep, seems to just scoot into nobility with Vogue profile and other coverage, but we need to prune the sources. Her instagram is cited waaaay too much. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable. On sources mentioned above. She is not as claimed the main topic of discussion of the billboard article, her mother is. The Telegraph piece is very weak, Annie's daughter did not go somewhere, woopdy doo. Teen Vouge is the girls taking about themselves. Italian vogue, another interview. Cosmo, very short piece. Express, very short piece. Sourcing is very poor and falls into tabloid. This page is puff cobbled together from mion mentions, puff, primary and non mentions. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. On the Billboard article, I strongly disagree-- it is not a passing mention. I think the title of the article that Billboard chose ("Annie Lennox On Her 'Beautiful' Stage Debut With Daughter In 'Nostalgia' Concert Special") speaks pretty clearly for itself. Also, may I respectfully remind you and everyone that finding the content of a valid source personally boring is not a valid reason to discredit it as "weak" (and saying "woopdy doo"). Please refer to Wikipedia's Articles to Avoid in Deletion Discussions, specifically WP:IDL. Thanks x Soulman1125 ( talk) 08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • So the fact that the entire headline is about how she did a major performance with her daughter, Lola Lennox, is discounted because the title says "daughter" instead of her name? Even though the story itself references "Lola Lennox" multiple times and there are two paragraphs in the story directly devoted to describing our subject in the piece? This is not a passing mention. I see what you are trying to project, and where you are coming from, but I'm not buying the argument. This story counts as coverage of her in a major music newssource. It was the entire point of the article-- thus, the title. Cheers x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Funny how you can get so much from the headline that is simply not there. And once again you are lying about the content. Do you realize that people can actually read the article for themselves?

duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Of course I know people can actually read the article for themselves. I hope they do, I don't think all would agree with your reading of it-- as evidenced by how many users have examined my thoughts and the article itself and voted keep. Saying "once again you are lying about the content" is a personal attack, one of many in these discussions despite my repeated attempts to ask for civility from you, and I find them very disheartening. Please keep in mind that the comments from each of us are both recorded and this is the final time I will civilly ask you to refrain from personal attack before seeking further action to resolve this behaviour. Thanks. Soulman1125 ( talk) 03:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 28. I know this is a third relist. If another admin wants to reclose this without waiting the full week, that's OK with me. Or we can just let it go until next week and hope a better consensus emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notability is not inherited, and while she's borderline notable she doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in any of these articles - the best one was the WSJ article, but then I realised it was about her sister. SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Duffbeerforme, or Redirect to Annie_Lennox#Personal_life where more mention can be made. The article is WP:Reference bombed, with no individual source sufficient. None are all of “in depth” and reliable and independent and a secondary source providing commentary. Many need pruning in obviously, but there is no end to the pruning and the article will be reduced to a stub. Verifiable, but not sufficiently covered for her own article. She may yet become Wikipedia-notable, but I feel this is unlikely with a career heading to modelling, modelling rarely generates fresh independent commentary. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please keep in mind she is a musician in addition to a model. The article does state that she has been recorded as currently in the studio, so I would expect the possibility of more sources due to this than solely from her modelling career. Cheers x Soulman1125 ( talk) 22:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Where is the independent secondary source talking about her as a musician? One that says she is good/bad/interesting, whatever? “Annie’s daughter played” is not commentary on the daughter. Lola needs her own reviews to be published. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Here is an article written by Julia Neel from British Vogue-- it states "Josephine de la Baume, Lola Lennox, Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." British Vogue is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another article that can contribute to WP:GNG, and I am going to add it to the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in WP:GNG with note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in WP:GNG shows, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage. Please also review my comment below introducing the previously uncited four pages of secondary, independent, and reliable material from Teen Vogue-- one that goes into detail about the subject's basic information. Thanks for your friendly discussion. I hope you find these useful in your analysis. Cheers and much love x Soulman1125 ( talk) 02:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, SmokeyJoe. Sure thing regarding Teen Vogue-- give me a few minutes to write you back as the text in the screen capture is likely hard for you to read (the scans of the pages are tiny!)-- but it is there, is readable, and does exist in print. Thanks for your patience. Much love x Soulman1125 ( talk) 06:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • User:SportingFlyer, I would call that sentence “more than trivial”, but “less than significant”. I have never seen agreement on the threshold of significant coverage, but I think that “two sentences” is an extreme lower limit to even consider. I wish to concede that as far as one sentence goes, that is a pretty good sentence. Not enough for a stand-alone article, I recommend using it to expand for coverage in her mother’s article. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ SmokeyJoe: But SmokeyJoe, this British Vogue combined with the other two sources I provided at the bottom should pass WP:GNG alone, don't you think? And if it does-- she should have her own page per guidelines. The Italian Vogue article has enough secondary information in it alone to create an entire profile of who she is and why she is significant. Why would we throw all of that information in an already lengthy Annie Lennox page and convolute it when when our subject passes WP:GNG for a smaller but more organized solo article? I respectfully ask you to please consider my reasoning down the page re: Italian Vogue and look at how this source perfectly fits guidelines-- we have enough secondary information to make an article for our subject, and there is significant coverage in multiple sources per the definitions (it may be contentious, but as far as what the guidelines explicitly read, they do pass-- although British Vogue may be on the very barely pass end, it's still a pass)... What official definition exists that would tell us to delete this page to the contrary? Please review The Italian Vogue sourcing: https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625 There is a TON of information here that is very, very clearly significant secondary, independent, and reliable that I went into detail to explain further below this conversation. A previous user dismissed the whole thing as a primary source interview-- but description of it is plainly false upon further inspection. It is in fact, an entire write up on our subject-- one that included a secondary source write-up, photos from a fashion shoot, and a separate primary interview all together. I think that's a pretty perfect example of sources to base our article on. Again, I ask you to consider my arguments here before you make your final decision. Thanks very much for your perspective. I look forward to hearing your views. Maybe I have missed something, I would love to be enlightened. Much love x Soulman1125 ( talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ SmokeyJoe: @ SportingFlyer: Also my friends, why are we debating what the word "significant" means? That is not what is to be defined here for our analysis of the articles. Wikipedia official guidelines have already defined "significant coverage" for us: Again, directly from WP:GNG, significant coverage is defined explicitly as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sourcing in British Vogue and Italian Vogue especially is more than a trivial mention (look at the official example of trivial mention: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." I don't believe you could argue British Vogue, Teen Vogue, and the Italian Vogue sources cover our subject as that sentence covers "Three Blind Mice"? So it is more than a trivial mention, but does not have to be the main subject of the article. That requirement is fulfilled by all three sources. They all also allow us to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Check and check. So, each of these sources individually passes the the bar to meet the definition of "significant coverage". No where in official guidelines does it say how many words or sentences must be used to parlay the information, simply that we must be able to collect detailed information from them, which, even in the British Vogue, we most definitely can, as I previously demonstrated. The Italian Vogue article does that for an entire page, as the whole write up is plainly about her. All parts cited for our Wiki entry are from lines of information that are secondary information that is from an independent and reliable source. These help her pass multiple sources for WP:GNG. So why, per guidelines, would we not give this subject its own page? Thanks again for listening and look forward to hearing from you. Hope you find my analysis to be worthy of agreement. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 ( talk) 06:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As discussed above the Italian Vogue piece is an interview, which are viewed negatively for WP:GNG purposes since it's not necessarily secondary. As noted the British Vogue piece is very brief. I'd be fine with a redirect per SmokeyJoe. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ SportingFlyer: With great respect, I believe the contention in your statement very much conflates the official guidelines rules per analysis of secondary and primary sources-- and leaves the idea that "the [entire] Italian Vogue piece is an interview, which are viewed negatively for WP:GNG" actually quite incorrect. This is false because this article merely contains a video interview inside of a much larger secondary piece, which should not be disregarded as primary when it is clearly not. Not all elements in the article are the video interview, and what is especially crucial is that all of the specific statements we are actually citing from the source in question for our Wikipedia article are indeed from a secondary source, they are the Vogue author Barbara Frigerio's own words and analysis. Just because an article may contain elements that are primary (any words spoken by Lola Lennox in the video interview) does not mean that every statement cited in the article is from a primary source. You are discounting the entire Italian Vogue article as primary when official guidelines explicitly tell us we should not. In official guideline WP:PSTS it very clearly and explicitly states: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Following this guideline allows us to examine the entire Italian Vogue piece and source our secondary information explicitly and solely from Barbara Frigerio's own words and analysis, and there is basically the entire sum of information we need about Lola Lennox's entire life and why she is notable in there to then create the skeleton of our article from secondary, independent, and reliable information. The very explicit reason we need this is because of the rule for WP:NOR and because we have Barbara Frigerio to interpret the primary information for us and explain it in her own secondary words and analysis-- we do not have to do any original research to create our article, as she has done it for us, and the source is both independent and reliable. She even explicitly states her own analysis that Lola Lennox is a "young fashion icon" and is "well-known for her talent in fashion." She also explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. I think upon further inspection, and after reviewing the specific points from the guidelines I have laid out for you here, I believe you should agree with them and my arguments clearly laid forth here in good faith. This is clearly enough to build our article from independent, secondary, and reliable sourcing-- and is perhaps the biggest piece that helps our subject pass WP:GNG. Hope you have an excellent day. With respect and much love x Soulman1125 ( talk) 20:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ SportingFlyer: Hi SportingFlyer, I don't want to speak for SmokeyJoe but I posted my reply to your concern below, and he posted his response after that. I feel he may have concurred with my comments to you regarding the article? I don't want to speak for him so I will let him do that, but please see my comments directly to you below regarding this-- it may clear things up for your concern. Thanks and cheers! x Soulman1125 ( talk) 08:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It's more than one sentence-- and there is a lot of information packed into those lines that can be extracted for the article. As I already noted-- where in the official guidelines can you prove that this does not count? Again, significant coverage is defined in official guidelines as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That's the direct quote from WP:GNG, not a community unvetted opinion essay that too often float in these discussions as the real definitions. It's definitely not a trivial mention, it is more than that-- it may not be the main topic of the article, but it does not need to be. Significant coverage is defined as the area in between both of those gauges quite explicitly. Thanks Soulman1125 ( talk) 03:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
The Vogue.co.uk article literally has only one sentence directly covering her in a list of about a dozen people talking about "up and coming stars" seven years ago. It's plainly trivial coverage not suitable for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi SportingFlyer-- I hear your concern, and as you may personally think the article loses merit for notability because of its age-- but under official guidelines, it very explicitly does not: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. That section states that notability of the subject does not diminish because of when it received notable coverage-- so I believe that argument is moot in standing with the official guidelines, which is what our decisions must be based on. Also there is not one sentence-- there are two-- one in the opening paragraph that describes "Lola Lennox" as A) "a musical talent" and B) that Vogue believes she is "one to watch in 2011". The image and caption describing her also tells us C) Her age D) that she is a musician E) her mother is Annie Lennox F) her genre is "electro pop fusing classical sounds" G) She is a model H) She has modelled for Topshop and Prada. That is way too much direct information about the subject to be considered a trivial mention, despite, very admittedly, its brevity. Again, the specific definition from official guidelines WP:GNG states very explicitly that "'significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This reference addresses the topic directly and detail, so much so that we can find out eight very different and specific pieces of information about the subject so that we can build the article with the provided secondary evidence. This allows us to not need original research to write the article, as British Vogue, combined with Teen Vogue and the other sources, has done the work for us, to then collect and create the whole article. British Vogue is also reliable, independent, and a secondary source and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Again, I believe this reference allows us to write the article from correct secondary sources, and definitely applies to WP:GNG when we look very specifically at the official guidelines as they are defined. Appreciate your discussion and hope you find my thoughts worthy of your consideration. Cheers. Soulman1125 ( talk) 05:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless someone can find in depth, reliable, secondary sources that talk about this person and not family. The sources I can find and in the article have been already dissected above and do not show GNG. Valeince ( talk) 01:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is an article that has WP:SIGCOV, but was not properly cited and previously included as such in the article. The Teen Vogue profile on the subject does go in depth-- with the author from Teen Vogue speaking on the subject with her own words and analysis for four pages. Teen Vogue is both independent and reliable, and these four pages of content on the subject contain content that is indeed secondary as per official guideline WP:PSTS. Please keep in mind that sources can contain both primary and secondary content as per official guidelines despite having an interview as part of the material ("A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as quoted in official guideline WP:PSTS) The original citation directed the link to a section of the piece that only contained a photo of the subject with brief primary quotes-- Instead, here is a direct link to the secondary sourcing of text from the author's own writing in depth on the subject from Teen Vogue for your consideration. First and second page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346365. Third and fourth page: http://coolspotters.com/models/lola-lennox/and/magazines/teen-vogue-magazine#medium-346353. I believe this should solve the concerns raised by the last three editors for at least one WP:SIGCOV article. In combination with the Vogue Italia article specifically, and other articles (although some may not be the sole topic of the article, but are more than trivial mention) I believe these together should pass WP:GNG Thanks very much and cheers x Soulman1125 ( talk) 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please note that I have also found another new piece of significant coverage by Julia Neel in British Vogue to add to the article, and should also be applied to demonstrate the subject's WP:GNG. The article states "Josephine de la Baume, Lola Lennox, Misty Miller and Sunday Girl - aka Jade Williams - are top of our list of musical talents to keep an ear out for over the next 12 months" and then goes to state "Lola Lennox: The 19-year-old musician daughter of Annie Lennox fuses electro pop with classical sounds – and does a bit of modelling on the side for Prada and Topshop, too." British Vogue is undoubtedly an independent, reliable, and secondary source. This is another new article that can be added, and can contribute to WP:GNG, I am going to boldy include it in the article. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/ones-to-watch-2011. Please keep in mind that "significant coverage" is defined explicitly in WP:GNG with note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This is plainly more than a trivial mention as the example in WP:GNG shows, as we can extract eight important and distinct pieces of information about the subject to contribute in building our article from appropriate sourcing, so it counts, as defined in official guidelines, as a piece of significant coverage towards WP:GNG. Much love to all and hope this is helpful in your assessment. Soulman1125 ( talk) 02:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Commment @ SmokeyJoe:@ SportingFlyer:@ Valeince: Here is again another article for your consideration that explicitly talks in detail about our subject-- this time in Italian Vogue by Barbara Frigerio. Vogue Italia is independent, reliable, and in the lines extracted from this article, secondary (the words are Barbara Frigerio's own). https://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-curvy/glam-and-curvy/2010/03/lola-lennox#ad-image10625. In this article we can extract: Lola is A) A model. B) Daughter of Annie Lennox C) Father is Uri Fruchtmann D) Sister is Tali Lennox E) Her parents divorced in 2000 (already cited in Personal Life section). F) Lola is a singer. G) Lola went to a prestigious music school like her mother Annie. H) That school was the Royal Academy of Music H) She has modelled for Vanity Fair, Jalouse, and Topshop. I) She plays piano and writes music. J) She is from London. Barbara also states her analysis that our subject is a "young fashion icon", is "well-known for her talent in fashion", explains "why she is famous" and that she "sets trends because she is naturally cool". Those are clear examples of the author's own analysis above and beyond all of the crucial information she also provides us in secondary sourcing about Lola's basic information and life that we need for our Wikipedia entry. All of this information is solely and explicitly from Barbara Frigerio's own passages, and are clearly statements that are secondary sourcing. Remember as per official guidelines "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." as directly quoted in WP:PSTS. This, in addition to the newly discovered article from British Vogue, and the correct referencing from Teen Vogue alone I believe should settle your desire for secondary sourcing that can be used to build the article's base appropriately per explicit official guidelines, without original research, and establish our subject's passing of WP:GNG. Thanks for taking the time to respond and examine and, again, I hope you find them helpful in your analysis. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 ( talk) 09:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. the above argument is a good explanation of why the person is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete marginally notable at best, and the promotional pressure is relentless. This is not worth the community's effort to maintain NPOV for. Jytdog ( talk) 14:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very poor article, also missing WP:BIO, the supreme policy. Complete waste of time on this Afd. scope_creep ( talk) 18:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per BIO. Strikerforce Talk 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although notability is not inherited, it would be rare for someone with family connections like these not to be in the public eye. I agree it's borderline, but I've seen far worse things accepted into the encyclopedia. However, the external link to her management must go! Deb ( talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
User:Deb, that is a "Wikipedia is full of bad, gossipy content, so lets have more" argument. Why in the world would you argue that way? I will note that the creator of this page has a glaring WP:APPARENTCOI as is obvious from the amount of unsourced, badly sourced, promotional content and detail they have dumped into WP, which they have adamantly denied. I also do not understand why you are supporting that behavior. Jytdog ( talk) 15:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I judge each case on its own merits. Deb ( talk) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Also, other stuff exists is not a viable argument in most situations. Strikerforce Talk 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
That's not the argument I used - what I was pointing out that the fact several people think an article doesn't demonstrate notability doesn't mean that it won't get through a deletion debate. I would add that I think this is a similar case to Robin-John Gibb. Deb ( talk) 18:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
but I've seen far worse things accepted into the encyclopedia would seem to be synonymous with "other stuff like this exists, so it must be okay"? Strikerforce Talk 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
You're entitled to take a different view, but not to harass people who disagree with you. I won't be changing my vote. Deb ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't recall asking you to do any such thing? I'm also not harassing you. I've simply pointed out the flaw in your rationale, which is certainly not anything that would rise to the level of "harassment". To be honest, I'm actually engaging you to attempt to understand your argument, not change it. Strikerforce Talk 20:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and many above, particularly Duffbeerforme. Per WP:ATD, a redirect to Annie's article might be appropriate, and I would encourage anyone whose position was "weak keep" to consider that alternative. We don't need more weak article's on Wikipedia. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:33, 3 October 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film)

Leak Proof Mission (2018 short film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without comment or improvement. Non-notable short film. Searches did not turn up anything near enough to meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 17:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 28 September 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. AGK  ■ 11:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Rah Crawford

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

G4 has been contested on this article. Fails on WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The New York Times sources that are reliable, have been discussed at previous deletion discussion too and were deemed trivial. Draft has been rejected twice in last one year. Hitro talk 14:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete no one but the article subject could have propelled the creation of such a flattering and detailed promotional piece, built on a foundation of passing mentions, minor accomplishments and articles published in sketchy sources. Fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Given the serious intent to creating a false persona of success here, as well as the previous deletion AFD, I would suggest SALT also. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on ensuing discussion, my stance is more of a weak Delete. - I found independent coverage that includes a feature article about the subject in Philadelphia City Paper here. Mentions in three New York Times articles, one for a building mural the subject painted, here, another in a review of a Brooklyn museum here, and the third for a painting of a grinning man included in a gallery showing here, do not alone hold up as significant coverage. But they add to notability when coupled with several other media outlet coverage. Also helping meet notability guidelines is the subject's inclusion in being named one of 11 City of Philadelphia creative ambassadors. I worked on the article and added a couple more citations, but it could use more paring down and some reorganizing. Still, based on the varied coverage as it stands now, the article passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 16:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment WP:BASIC says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which is the case here. Also, please explain how this artist meets WP:NARTIST? He does not meet any of the criteria. The Nytimes sources are the definition of trivial, passing mentions. Here is the all that that Times sources above say
  1. From one courtyard you can look up at Rah Crawford’s “We Are Golden,” depicting Bushwick residents including a pigtailed girl with an outstretched arm holding a red balloon;
  2. an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard.
  3. Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility.
The Times coverage totals 55 words. The "my City Paper" source is the only decent source. You can dream all you want, but the notability standards are not met by a long shot. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 00:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Three inclusions in New York Times art reviews are hardly "trivial" or "passing mentions," and your saying so does not make it true. By the way, I do not "dream" about notability standards that by my understanding are clearly met. Thank you. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 02:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • So you are saying that 18 or more words (55/3, roughly) in the New York Times is SIGCOV? What about 16 or 17 words, is that still SIGCOV? It's clearly trivial coverage; two of them are not even complete sentences! Please see the WP:GNG guideline where trivial mentions are explained in an example: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." (22 words). The problem here is that 55 words in the NYT is not significant coverage and does not contribute the subject's notability. As the GNG says" "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • You did not answer how he meets WP:ARTIST, which is a high standard. I agree that the Times is good. 150 words in the New York Times would indeed be excellent coverage. A single sentence, or half a sentence is trivial. It means the reporter probably spent less than a minute writing it. It seems that being familiar with definitions and understanding them are two different things. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 00:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the refs in the article don't establish notability, he's mentioned but there's no sigcov. I checked books on the assumption everything useful from news is already in the article, nothing much there. Szzuk ( talk) 13:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consenus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 17:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Article cites arthistoryarchive.com, a wiki to which apparently anyone can contribute: (Submitting Artist Biographies: If you want to help out you can. Please research and write artist biographies. Send the biography as a text document (no Word Docs or RTFs please) and attach any specific artworks that should accompany it. Please use our rules for Labeling Art. Send the text document and images to us via email. If approved, your article will be added to the Art History Archive within 1-3 days. "Note: If you are an art historian or an art student we can also post a link to your website under your name.). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only in depth maybe-independent coverage seems to be from one local paper. (Philadelphia City Paper was a former alternative weekly newspaper in Philadelphia.) Else, we have mentions. NPIC-Art does not seem to be notable either as a movement or an organization. There is no other stated basis for notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. The sources mentioned by AuthorAuthor are, for the most part, trivial mentions. The MyCityPaper source is low quality both because it's local ( WP:AUD) and because of the unknown editorial oversight; the article also seems to be largely an interview.
In addition to being deleted once already, this was recreated as a draft, which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it with template:db-g7. While it's true that WP:AfC is an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway is WP:GAMING the system. Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio. Edit comments (currently deleted) like, Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized. :) make it clear that there's undisclosed WP:COI. In view of the persistent recreation, this should salted to avoid future abuse. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 4 October 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 no consensus. After three relists, opinions on what to do are still too diverse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Melanoglossia

Melanoglossia (  | 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 article consists of 2 sentences Openlydialectic ( talk) 01:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88( talk) 01:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
It may not be widely discussed, but it's wide enough that readers might want to look it up. Our criterion for inclusion is notability, not widely known. Spinning Spark 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo ( talk) 17:33, 28 September 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) 22:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dice & Glory

Dice & Glory (  | 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 on a game fails GNG. For the preceding 11 years it's only had one source of questionable veracity (something called darkshire.net that is a non-functioning directory). A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find any additional RS. (Google Books returns several of the gamebooks itself.) Based on original article creator's username and the name of the company involved, this is likely a COI contribution. Chetsford ( talk) 16:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't even find a potential merge target for this. Definitely reads like promo. -- Masem ( t) 19:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are no specific notability guidelines for games, but significant coverage is required by the WP:GNG. This does not have any. --02:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 ( talk) 11:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Good Game (2017 TV series)

Good Game (2017 TV series) (  | 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 notable. Fails to gain any reviews or other coverage to satisfy notability. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 14:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - Seems pretty notable to me. Polygon, PC Gamer etc reviews provide WP:GNG. 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Polygon and PC Gamer are really routine articles. wumbolo ^^^ 11:43, 1 October 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) 22:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Legends of Callasia

Legends of Callasia (  | 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 notable. Coverage consists only of press releases, questionable sources and otherwise unsuitable sources. If this had any significance, there would have been reviews written in the two years that it has existed now for, but there haven't. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:31, 28 September 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) 17:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Lordhair

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

No evidence that this is a notable product, and little coverage. None of the English sources cited (9 of the 10) contributes to notability. Most are the company's own publicity. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 28 September 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 no consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

WeatherReadyFest

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

With just 4 mentions at Google News it doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —AE ( talk • contributions) 02:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the subject notable under its former name?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:18, 28 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

England 2030 FIFA World Cup bid

England 2030 FIFA World Cup bid (  | 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:CRYSTAL. We don't know if there will be a bid by England to host the 2030 World Cup. Indeed, most of the recent reporting has suggested if there is a bid involving England, it would also involve other neighbouring countries.

A similar article was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 12:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
But we don't even know if this will occur. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (my emphasis). The recent reporting indicates that any bid would be a UK, or UK and Ireland, bid. Therefore an "England" World Cup bid is far from certain to take place. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 20:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
It's not really an "event," though, and it passes WP:GNG regardless. SportingFlyer talk 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:11, 28 September 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 Reverend and The Makers. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 13:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK

Reverend and the Makers: Live in the UK (  | 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 album by a notable band. All tracks are on other releases. A search for the album comes up with very little- as it stands, it did not chart in any market and therefore fails WP:NALBUM. Jip Orlando ( talk) 14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:35, 28 September 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 delete A1. ansh 666 19:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Pond Duck

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

Unsourced, seven-word-long non-article with no good CSD criteria for it. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 13:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 14:11, 28 September 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. Keep !voters have provided plenty of evidence. Clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The murder of Sophie Collombet

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

Unremarkable crime TheLongTone ( talk) 13:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Sometimes there are more to these articles, but at the moment it fails WP:GNG, unless it improves I support the deletion. I don't want to be rude but the rationale could of been written better. Govvy ( talk) 15:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I suggest it has relevance outside of Australia in at least France. WP:LASTING is a presumption of notability. The converse does not follow. 99.99% of horses, bands, sports people, etc., have no lasting impact. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whatever the proposer's life experience, this is a remarkable crime in the context of Brisbane. It occurred in a popular park in a very central part of the city and many passersby who failed to render the victim any assistance. I've added some cited commentary to that effect. Kerry ( talk) 05:41, 7 October 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 Michael Moore Hates America. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 13:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Mike Wilson (filmmaker)

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

Nothing here that is independent of the one movie he made. WP:BLP1E. Guy ( Help!) 12:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 28 September 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) 22:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Ansar al-Tawhid

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

May not meet WP:TERROR and WP:GNG Sheldybett ( talk) 11:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Some merit for a redirect to John Granville (diplomat) (no need for merge - as the very stubby content here is already there), however the more notable Ansar al-Tawhid (Syria) should become primary and redirecting Ansar al-Tawhid (Sudan) does not make much sense. This group basically seems to be known solely in the context of the killing of Granville and being one of two groups claiming responsibility. Back when they claimed responsilbility, one NEWSORG - said "A previously unknown militant group has claimed responsibility for the slaying of a US diplomat in Sudan, a group that monitors extremist web sites said Friday .... there was no way to authenticate the statement by the group calling itself Ansar al-Tawhid, or Companions of Monotheism" [31] which is never a good notability sign. Looking at subsequent coverage of "Ansar al-Tawhid"+Sudan - it seems it is all related to Granville (the trial of the killers and their subsequent escape from jail) - with the same initial claim rehashed. Per - this book there was yet another group that claimed responsibility (Al-Qaida in the Land of the Two Niles) - and the Sudanese government disputes either exists and did not charge the assassins with belonging to either group (not that the Sudanese government is a trust worthy source for such a classification, but....). So - all we have is one disputed claim of responsibility for an event, making this a T1E and definitely not meeting NCRIMINAL/NORG. The event itself is notable - but we have an article on Granville. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • deleteper impressive, thorough argument made by Icewhiz. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:26, 3 October 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) 22:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Kudure Mukha

Kudure Mukha (  | 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:NFILM - seems to be written like an advertisement as it gives no encyclopedic information (i.e. plot, reception, rating, etc.). Kirbanzo ( talk) 20:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE ( talk • contributions) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:NFILM No one else is touching this one, so I will jump in. Although the Director and the actors are notable. this particular whose existance can be verified at Amazon [32] still fails to provide any significant coverage in sources in English language. Although one can argue that sources may be found in Kannada language. but from whatever we have in English language, does not inspire any confidence in this movies notability. This article [33] enlists the major movies of the lead actor and does not mention this movie. neither does any article on director Y. R. Swamy mention this movie. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 19:48, 29 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Bridge Club Brașov

Bridge Club Brașov (  | 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 proof of notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE ( talk • contributions) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:48, 28 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thierry Fervant

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG/ WP:NMUSIC Kleuske ( talk) 10:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE ( talk • contributions) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:48, 28 September 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Odom

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

Literally all sources unsuitable for Wikipedia, and mostly primary. WP:BEFORE shows the football player in RSes. No evidence of notability. This has never been an article with acceptable sourcing for a BLP. Contested PROD - but the editor contesting did not fix the problems ... just removed all the sourcing tags. David Gerard ( talk) 09:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As mentioned in my edit summary, those tags I've removed were false since an interview of a person is a secondary and not a primary source. Furthermore a report of someone's activities or words done by an independent source is not a primary source. The notability of the person was already adressed on the article's talk page on 13 June 2016 after the previous nomination of this article for deletion: the notability is derived from the fact that Chris Odom is an author of a book with a very considerable printing run. -- eugrus ( talk) 11:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • What you're talking about is your statement "Article's importance> Chris Odom is an author of books with a huge printing run" - this needs independent third-party evidence, and that the books in question are in fact notable themselves. The claim he ghost-wrote someone else's books definitely needs serious verification - David Gerard ( talk) 16:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Do you really consider the author page created by Amazon a primary source on who is the author of a certain book? Is the Library of Congress also primary? -- eugrus ( talk) 13:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • So one again, isn't the claim Chris Odom was the ghostwriter behind the bestselling... on Amazon.com a source of what someone ghost-wrote and if not a bookseller or a library then who should claim someone wrote something for you to recognize such a source as credible and secondary? -- eugrus ( talk) 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I've now also cited a book of independent authors published by a major American publishing house as a further source on Chris Odom. -- eugrus ( talk) 11:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Btw, by that I mean Paul Vigna, Michael J. Casey (2015). The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and Digital Money Are Challenging the Global Economic Order. St. Martin's Press. p. 245. ISBN  9781466873063. -- eugrus ( talk) 13:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If kept, this page should be moved to Chris Odom (programmer) as this person is clearly not the primary topic for "Chris Odom". Regardless of outcome, Chris Odom (American football) should be moved here for the same reason. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - promotional. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Would you please go further on that claim? Preferably with regards of WP guidelines as to what promotional is. If worth mentioning, I am in no way a related party to the person subject of the article. -- eugrus ( talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: What concerns me is that the sourcing here is so incredibly light when it comes to which sources on the page can be seen as reliable. Here's my rundown of the sourcing:
  1. Dating Skills Review. This page is more of a database type listing at best and at worst it's a profile page on a site that aims to sell the reader something. When searching through the website for anything that would make this site seem like a reliable source I was bombarded with pop up ads offering me free custom advice. Not the type of thing Wikipedia would see as reliable.
  2. Linkedin. This is at best a primary source. It tends to be heavily discouraged as a primary source on Wikipedia because Linkedin is seen as inherently promotional. Generally speaking, as far as primary sources go this isn't really the type of thing you want to use on here because aside from the site being intended for a way for people to mingle and promote themselves, it's also very frequently used by marketing people who come on Wikipedia to promote a client. I'm not saying that's what is happening here, just explaining why it's such a bad idea to use this as a source unless you have a lot of secondary, independent sourcing to mitigate things.
  3. GitHub. This is a primary source and can't show notability. Offhand, this is more along the lines of a better primary source to use, if you had to rely more heavily on primary sources.
  4. Open Transactions. Another primary source, cannot show notability.
  5. Age of Cryptocurrency. This isn't terrible at all, but it's not really a slam dunk as far as a source goes. I'd consider it to be usable, but it's not enough on its own to really show notability and it's kind of on the lighter side of a mention, all things considered. It's not bad but it's also not as strong as a source as would be needed in a situation where there's really not a lot out there.
  6. Inside Bitcoins. This one is a bit tricky. The main issue here is that it's based on an interview. I don't always agree with it, but interviews and interview based articles are seen as primary sources since the information is coming from the interviewee. There's also some slight concern that the website offers sponsored articles, as traditionally websites that offer this are seen as unreliable on Wikipedia. Still, this doesn't look to be a sponsored article. Long story short, this is really not a strong source to rely on since a good chunk of editors see interview type articles as primary sources that can't give notability.
  7. Bitcoin. This is about a company Odom founded. What weakens the source are two things: that the article is kind of written like a press release and most importantly, that the site sells products. The latter would invalidate it for many editors.
  8. Amazon. Amazon is definitely an e-commerce site and as such, isn't seen as reliable. It actually shouldn't be used as a source at all, as its usage is seen as both promotional and as Wikipedia potentially endorsing the site and/or product. I would recommend using WorldCat to back up claims of him working on these books. However I do need to state that the claims of him mostly writing the books is not backed up by the Amazon source or WorldCat, so should be removed from the article. For this you'd need a very good, strong source that would stand up under scrutiny.
In the end there is one OK source (the book) and two weaker sources (interview based article and Bitcoin.com). This really isn't enough to establish notability on Wikipedia - you need much, much stronger sourcing than this. Offhand my recommendation would be to look for book reviews in reliable sources that specifically mention him by name. Avoid self-published blogs and PUA type websites for these, as you need things like reviews in newspapers and the like for this to really help bolster the article. I've replaced the Amazon link with a Buzzfeed article, but that's not a super strong source so I wouldn't really rely too heavily on it to help save the article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an informative discussion but only 1 vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk ( talk) 12:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been a lot of debate but 1 !vote is not enough to have a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:46, 28 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

WhoIsHostingThis.com

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

Unreliable trivial mentions, no significant coverage of the subject in reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Editor General of Wiki ( talk) 11:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:45, 28 September 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Roccor

Roccor (  | 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 has been tagged for notability since June 2017. Article's creator user:Bld175 has declared a conflict of interest. Page was previously WP:PRODded and deleted, then restored at the request of the article creator, but the citations since added do not strongly indicate notability. – Fayenatic London 08:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 10:45, 28 September 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) 22:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Qupital

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

An IP reverted my WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, saying "content and reference are valid", which doesn't address that this is non-notable company not meeting WP:NCORP because sources are either: forbes contributor (unreliable); crunchbase and bloomberg profile (routine); or other routine coverage of funding with no real analysis Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 28 September 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. Please edit the article to change its scope as needed. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 13:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

John Frey and Peter Morris

John Frey and Peter Morris (  | 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 that Frey meets WP:ACADEMIC or that Morris or pairing of Frey & Morris in an article meets WP:GNG. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 09:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but refocus on Frey alone. I just added eight published reviews of three books by Frey to the article. He passes WP:AUTHOR. The article makes no case for Morris being notable nor for the two of them being notable as a couple. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:Author. I second the rational above by Eppstein. Rename article to John Frey (academic) or something along those lines. Morris can be mentioned as supported by RS. Thsmi002 ( talk) 01:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but retitle the article to either "John A. Frey" or "John Andrew Frey" to distinguish him from the other people in WP named John Frey. A case for notability can be made as either an author or academic. I see nothing to show Peter Morris is WP notable. At best he can be mentioned in the article as Frey's significant other. Papaursa ( talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 04:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 04:29, 29 September 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. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Discuss merge on the talkpage. Tone 17:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Tubas-Tumas mine

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

No evidence that such a mine exists. Reference points to a general overview of Uranium in Namibia. Tubas is mentioned as an inferred resource but not measured or mined. Scott Davis Talk 04:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Nomination has been updated to also include Tubas Red Sand mine which is grouped with the primary nomination in the only reference. -- Scott Davis Talk 04:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Merge information into Mining in Namibia - insufficient information to indicate it deserves a separate article JarrahTree 08:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge both pages together as I believe they are the same project. This Economist article reports on the discovery of uranium deposits at Tubas-Tumas. This presentation reports that a bulk sample trench has been dug. The article's claim that the mine is in full-scale operation needs sourcing or removing, but otherwise, there is no problem with having an article here. Spinning Spark 13:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, it seems that all these deposits are part of the Reptile Project, owned by the Australian Deep Yellow Limited. [34] Beagel ( talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 03:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete'. Not a mine, just a prospect. Also recommend deletion of Tubas Red Sand mine which is also just a prospect. WP:TOOSOON. There is no significant coverage because these so-called "mines" are not yet operational, the reserves have yet to be adequately measured, and given the recent and current state of uranium prices, these prospects are unlikely to become mines in the foreseeable future. No merger insufficient information for merger. Redirects not usful since there is little to nothing to say about these prospects other than that they exist and have some guestimates as to reserves. -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Wrong title is not a reason for deletion when it could be fixed by renaming, neither if the mine is operational or not. It is important if there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Beagel ( talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge At present, neither Tumas nor Tubas are mines, neither operational nor planned. Mining licenses have not been granted. Tubas is a hole in the ground, the size of a small public swimming pool, plus an exploration license, plus an estimation on the deposits. Tumas is the same without the hole, and neither of them are notable as businesses or structures. It would thus make sense to merge the information into Uranium mining in Namibia in the form of "Deposits have been discovered at..." BTW, Tubas and Tumas are two different place names, 20 kilometres (12 mi) apart, and shouldn't be lumped together in any way. There's as yet no indication that a future mine, if it is ever developed, would cover both deposits. Tubas Red Sand mine is the same thing as Tubas mine as it is the sand from which the Uranium is to be got. -- Pgallert ( talk) 09:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply
They seem to be a part of the same Reptile Project by Deep Yellow Limited. Beagel ( talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Again, it is irrelevant if it is prospective mine or not. This is not criteria for deletion. Beagel ( talk) 11:25, 6 October 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

1433 in philosophy

1433 in philosophy (  | 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:GNG failing list with 1 entry. » Shadowowl | talk 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 19:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted due to request at DRV, with significant expansions to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 ( t • c) 18:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Redirect to 15th century in philosophy; this has already been merged there so no need to merge again. Excessive and WP:UNDUE coverage of largely trivial details about this one year (and a lack of similar coverage of other years) doesn't mean this article should be kept. None of these references are about the year in philosophy; they're about individual events that happened to have been in this year. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Regarding the "but 1623 was kept" argument: first, I'm not convinced that was the right decision either. Second, years from before the invention of the printing press will have significantly less information available. Third, that page at least has several books published there; we have one redlink for books in this year. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, its useful, of course the article could be redirected but I see no need to do so, trying to micromanage articles which will eventually fill isn't useful. Szzuk ( talk) 18:07, 6 October 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) 22:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Fusion Power Associates

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

dubious notability, no sources FASTILY 05:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't believe any of the sources you mentioned signify notability. The first 3 are about people receiving awards from FPA which does nothing to show the company is notable. The final source mentions the company once and seems more like a passing mention. Papaursa ( talk) 22:10, 4 October 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

High school No. 1637 (Moscow)

High school No. 1637 (Moscow) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · school No. 1637 (Moscow))
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Please also note that the Russian article received two nominations for deletion 2013 2016. The first AfD (2013) came to be kept because "The article in the norm is, of course, an exaggeration. But since there is something in the local newspapers + the school for more than half a century, we will assume that the VP: OKZ is, left - Ghuron 18:45, March 2, 2014 (UTC)" [from Google translate].
The translation of the result of the second AfD (2016) is incomprehensible. Probably the equivalent of keep or no-consensus to delete. -- David Tornheim ( talk) [revised 04:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I read the contriubtion timeline, the discussion on the ruWP indicates the afd was inclining towards deletion, until additional sources were added. If they were added here, it would meet our requirements also. Back 11 years ago when we debated every individual high schools, the presence of factors such as high standing on a list and teachers with particularly high qualification were considered relevant for keeping--as is the case here, and had an influence on the result--although the factor which actually had most influence on the results was how many of the editors on each side appeared for the discussion. My guess then was that we did slightly better than random. We would to much better to maintain the continuing rule that we treat all highschools as notable to avoid the waste of effort in the discussions. It has never been decided that this was not a good argument for maintaining the practice. But even for those who do not agree, we should keep this one. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It would be stupid (yes a strong word) for Wikipedia to have any practice other than keeping all articles about high schools which grant degrees. One reason is promotional for sake of Wikipedia: These are gateway articles for readers / prospective new editors. It is pointless to debate them. This has been said before, try wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Doncram ( talk) 07:46, 6 October 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. Merging, if desirable, can be discussed on the talk page. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Very large database

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

This is just a dictionary definition: ‘a VLDB is a very large database, but we cannot say how large is very large’ Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Merge to Big data#Architecture. Not notable; NOTDICT. I don't see the benefit of a merge, as there's very little useful writing here. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    Struck NOTDICT after a bit of thought. I stand by my "delete" vote: I agree with Dirk that we could also merge this into Database. I cannot see anything useful that can be written here that wouldn't also belong in the Database article. Enterprisey ( talk!) 22:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    Changed to Merge, per the good points made below. Enterprisey ( talk!) 00:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic is notable; for example, here's a book about one aspect of it: Mining Very Large Databases with Parallel Processing. To understand the general nature of this topic, see Building the biggest scientific databases. Notice that this uses synonyms such as "biggest" and "extremely large", so we should include those terms too. This demonstrates that the dictionary definition argument for deletion is nonsense. We are not dealing with a particular word here and there is no dictionary content – etymology, grammar and the like. Per WP:DICDEF, what we have here is a stub for a broad concept. Note that the page used to be larger but much of the content was split to form the VLDB page. That's about an annual conference which is devoted to this topic – the 45th will be next year in Los Angeles. They publish their proceedings each year and so that's another stack of potential sources. As it happens, I shall myself be attending a Wikimedia event tomorrow in Cambridge organised by Charles Matthews. This will discuss data-mining scientific sources and how Wikidata might help with this. I shall cite this discussion to demonstrate how we have our work cut out for us because Wikipedia's coverage of such topics is feeble. Thanks for the timely example. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Andrew Davidson: So you can give me a definition of a very large database? Per the article, it is a database with a lot of records/data (well .. dôh). When does a database qualify as a very large database, and when is a large database not very large anymore? I understand that at some point a db becomes difficult to handle (though, that depends on storage methodology, and what one wants to get out of it. Compare it to a very large dictionary .. whether it contains 1000 words, or 1000.000.000 words, you'll be able to find 'database' quickly knowing how it is sorted. It is just that you need a bigger shelve and a strong table).
    (yes, I know, the article was split, the conference isa notable article in itself. And I can seehow there would be a conference on how to shelve something big, and how to organize it, but I don't think the subject discussed there warrants an own article). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    Looking at a PDF of the first book, I see nothing that can be used in this article outside of trivial statements such as how running standard algorithms on large data sets takes a long time. The article originally from SLAC Today is similarly uninstructive, and I would argue that neither provide coverage above the passing level. The article alludes to a "Very Large Database conference", from which sources may be found, but in the absence of those I don't think there are enough sources to support an article. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (Came here from ARS.) Dicdef. The fact that one can find sources "about this topic" is meaningless, as the same could be said about all sorts of words and phrases, and we are not a dictionary. The veiled call to engage in SYNTH above ("broad topic") is reminiscent of Andrew's comments for which he's been called out in other AFDs here and here, for example. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not sure yet whether I'm a keep on this yet, but the criticism that there is no exact definition is very much a red herring. Nobody would argue that a supermarket is "just" a large grocery store and shouldn't have a separate article. But I doubt if there is any formal definition in square feet or number of products that define a supermarket. There is a definition in the article, it is one that contains so much data "that it requires special processing". It is easy to see that, beyond a certain size, simple or naive sorting and searching algorithms are going to fail. Or at least not return results in a sensible time. The exact borderline is going to be fuzzy, depend on application, user expectation, and it will be constantly shifting as technology improves. The existence of specific conferences for this is kind of compelling for notability. Spinning Spark 23:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Spinningspark: 'Large grocery stores that stock significant amounts of non-food products, such as clothing and household items, are called supermarkets.' ... a massive shop that only sells food items would still be a grocery (better: a very large grocery), not a supermarket. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Not sure if I go along with that definition (and its not sourced). In Britain, supermarkets primarily sell groceries, and nobody says "grocery store" for anything. But in any case, that is tangential. My point remains valid even if my analogy is full of faults. Spinning Spark 00:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
          • @ Spinningspark: I was indeed looking further myself, and don't know whether my comment holds further water. From Dutch, a grocer ('groenteboer') was really distictly different than a supermarket. But I am not sure where I would go to a grocery during my time in UK. In the UKI would go to a minimart ('very small supermarket' in analogy, as I can now here in KSA. I was however surprised to see that that is a redirect to Superette (a word I have never seen before).
    My problem here is, what is mentioned below, that the only distinction here is plain size .. I am trying to compare such withother context. Regular computer vs. supercomputer is not the same, grocery vs. supermarket does not feel the same, .. dictionary vs verylarge dictionary (same concept, we do not do that). A VLDB needs other architecture .. but except foroverkill there is no reason why a very small database would not have the same architecture. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My name having been invoked above, I note that Google Books shows numerous hits for VLDB. It does seem possible that the term is a buzzword, particularly as there are not so many recent hits. But it should also be noted that in the world of Moore's law, one would not expect the term "very large" to be exactly quantified: exponential growth doesn't work like that. There was a "Very Large Databases Conference" series that ran to at least 35 editions. Conclusion: it was a perfectly valid engineering concept at that time of the article's creation in 2005. [42] equates it to an "enterprise class database" primarily for big data. Actually that could usefully be written conversely: unless you need a VLDB you don't have big data. "VLDB" may now mean a 5 TB range [43]. My conclusion is that the article could well be redirected to Big data#Architecture. Charles Matthews ( talk) 03:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Charles Matthews: I guess that my 'problem' here is the distinction between 'database' and 'very large database'. The only difference is plainly size, and it only becomes a VLDB when its users need to use other techniques than what they would on a regular database (and a properly designed database may never become a VLDB ..). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
<shrug> We are talking about engineering issues, and whether there is a qualitative difference between regular and "very large" databases. As a member of my family says, if your data fits on a laptop, it isn't "big data". If your database requires no special work for the application, it isn't "very large". We may be agreeing here. I don't see anything wrong if some who searches here for "very large database" finds a historical section about big data. It's obviously a moving target. Charles Matthews ( talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If the article actually had some details of the techniques and hardware used for VLDB with some helpful links to other Wikipedia articles or external papers then I would be at keep. If someone so expands the article during the course of this AfD then I will change to keep. But as it stands, I think our best option is Charles Matthews suggestion of a merge and redirect to Big data#Architecture. Certainly, Very large database and VLDB should lead somewhere on Wikipedia. Completely redlinking it would be bad. Spinning Spark 08:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - VLDB has had a 40+ year history before "Big Data" and usage only appears to decline in about 2005 ( Google Ngrams, Google Trends). Some of the early history can start with RAND/ARPA VLDB program and the VLDB Conference. Burroughs specified a computer to handle VLDB. As mentioned by Spinningspark, seems like this article could include the major innovations to support VLDB, mining the conference and awards. Also, "big data" has its 3+ V's but it doesn't define how big they have to be to be considered "big data" instead of just "data". My (worthless) opinion is VLDB generally refers to the biggest DBs (like top500) and next-gen DBs. StrayBolt ( talk) 00:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect this article is a (very bad) WP:DICTDEF with no other content. It is a "term of art" used in the industry and redirecting somewhere is appropriate. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Database. This doesn't work as a stand-alone article because of its stubbish WP:DICDEF nature, but including this in the Database article would improve it. Reyk YO! 07:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Speedy keep: The VLDB article has potential for growth and I expect at some point may receive a one liner from a/the storage section of the database article, and possibly one other location in it. Giving some WP:ORIGINAL thoughtlines the special processing referred to may relate to conventional DBMS management techniques becoming stretched so specialist approaches and configurations are required to holistically manage the scenario. Technically 2TB, 8TB and 32TB file limit sizes have been issues, as have the number of files a DBMS can support. Backup / recovery and maintenance will become issues. All these best discussed in a stand alone article. I know oracle used the VLDB term a lot, and quite simply not so sure about other vendors. There are even whole conferences on it in 2005 and 2018! I partly suspect due to some of the issues RDBMS can have with large data volumes, and partly due to fashion, a 'Bigdata' approach rather than getting into a 'VLDB' approach might be the current preferred approach. In all events AfD's tend to be minimally disruptive for the nominator but can be disproportionally more so for a rescue or non minimalistic merge. And AfD is a bad place for discussing merges. In this case a Template:Missing information could have been a precursor step to going to AfD (not perfect but Okay. So speedy keep add Missing information template is fine. Adding the computing Wikiproject to the talk page would have been useful also. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as of current state, which I understand to be a version that has seen substantial editing since the nomination - if the editor gets round to actually providing sources for the many many unsourced statements they added. Otherwise this is a cardboard effort. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 October 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 and rename to Zvi Hirsh Broide. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Tzvi Hirsch Braude

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

Importance asserted on the talk page, but no sources provided. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 02:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:02, 28 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Becca's Bunch

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

Too soon. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 02:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. While not all kid's shows get coverage, this one has garnered at least some – [44], [45] (and I suspect there's more UK coverage out there, but I have a much harder time finding that as I don't know where to look...). Further, this clearly meets WP:TVSHOW having aired on Nick Jr. in both the UK and now in the United States. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
In fact, there appears to be much more coverage now than when I last checked a few days ago: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] Based on what I'm seeing now, this is a definite "keep"... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:14, 28 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Ginny Aiken

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

Author with no notable coverage. The 2 included sources are a Goodreads profile (which lists the author's webpage as its source) and a historical romance. I searched via Google, Newspapers.com, ProjectMuse, and Jstor, but found only incidental mentions. There is no indication that she has won any awards or other recognition. Leschnei ( talk) 02:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 04:33, 29 September 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Laois Senior Hurling Championship

2018 Laois Senior Hurling Championship (  | 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. IP0W3RSH3LLi ( talk) 23:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I just noticed that Laois Senior’A Hurling Championship has an AFD tag that points to this discussion. Adding it here, as it has basically the same flaws:

Laois Senior’A Hurling Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laois Senior’A Hurling Championship
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:03, 28 September 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Computer Transportation Services

Computer Transportation Services (  | 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 company, fails WP:NCORP & WP:GNG Cabayi ( talk) 19:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:03, 28 September 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 Walk-in clinic. Content remains behind the redirect for merging if applicable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Retail clinic

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

Duplicates Walk-in clinic, and Retail clinics in the United States with no significant content and no references. Just a list of minor illnesses. Asserts that these clinics are common in many countries, but doesnt produce any evidence. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 00:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • A walk-in clinic is one which provides service without an appointment. In the UK, the NHS provides these, for example. A retail clinic is one which is sited within a setting such as a supermarket. They are not the same thing. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I dont see the setting as defining. My local walk-in clinic is inside the large Boots in Manchester Arndale Centre, but that in itself doesnt make it different from other walk-in centres, some of which are in hospitals or other health buildings. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is no consensus to either keep , merge or redirect .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:02, 28 September 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 Goodman UK#Leeds Valley Park. Redirect as merge is already done. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Leeds Valley Park

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable business park. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is hyper-local and / or routine notices. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/Mbrowne85 with few other contributions outside this topic, as part of an apparent walled garden around Goodman UK.

First AfD closed as no consensus; sources presented there were not convincing, being of the same routing / WP:SPIP added) variery. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Update: I would be fine with a redirect. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
@ The joy of all things:: Sorry I was unclear. It stands for WP:SPIP (self-promotional sources). K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article looks to be outdated as it appears that it was sold by Goodman in 2014 (insidermedia.com). There are several sites that describe it as award-winning but don’t say which award(s) – all I found was a 2010 BALI National Landscape Award for the sites maintenance company (gracelandscapes.com), and there are also a couple of local awards for landscape: Yorkshire in Bloom 2012 and the Leeds Architecture Awards 2006 – however these do not appear to be enough to establish notability. EdwardUK ( talk) 11:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:01, 28 September 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Donna Harris (businesswoman)

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

Part of a promotional campaign for the incubator 1776 and its executives. Harris' only claim to notability is as co-founder of 1776 and that article was just deleted as promotional and non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1776 (company), That she has "appeared in media outlets" shows she has a PR agent; that she received minor prizes such as "40 under 40" for a single city's business journal, shows that perhaps she might be notable some day, but not yet. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:00, 28 September 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Portfolio.hu

Portfolio.hu (  | 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 meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE, WP:NNEWSPAPER, claims to high readership are not verifiable (and are not criteria for notability; if a publication is widely read, there will be independent coverage of it) and neither Portfolio.hu nor the lone independent source appear to have ever been mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard. Corresponding article on the Hungarian wiki does not appear to have any reliable sources cited either.

Based on their talk page, the article's creator tried to create a similar page earlier at Portfolio (media company), got denied at AfC due to not demonstrating notability, and then abandoned the draft. signed, Rosguill talk 07:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply


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

This is a response to the comment above: the claims made on high readership are verifiable, they are explicitly mentioned in Hungarian articles of independent, major newsoutlets writing about the latest Gemius audit reports on which online news site made it into the top segment in Hungary. Thus the statement on this is wrong. English sources are not available on this, but that is also the case for many foreign newspapers, and it is not a criteria for verifiability, as the foreign language sources can easily be translated. This news site is listed among the oldest and biggest economic journals in Hungary, which is regularly cited in Hungarian media. This statement can also be verified, though it is not currently cited. I believe that this fact has to translate into adequate notability with respect to Hungarian news sites. Reaching such readership as cited in a small country of 10 million puts it in comparison to leading news sites in advanved countries, such as the US. A less relevant note, but it seems to me the notability of most other Hungarian news sites currently covered in this wiki's corresponding section could be attacked in a similar fashion, which I do not see as justified. signed, bence.andras talk 09:40, 14 September 2018 CEST

  • Please add citations that are not from portfolio.hu itself, but from independent sources. The Hungarian Wikipedia is more extensive, but still would not be acceptable here due to lack of third-party sources. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply


  • Hello, I have added two additional, independent third-party sources, which both explicitly mention Portfolio.hu's readership statistics, and confirm the ~1 mln/month number. One of them explicitly states that Portfolio.hu has been the most read financial newspaper in Hungary up to last year, when it was overtaken by a competitor, and came in second place. The article is thus correctly worded that it is "one of the most read" financial newspapers in Hungary, but not the most read. This fact justifies, that it is a notable newspaper in Hungary. Now, three independent sources are put in place to verify this information. The citation for portfoliocsoport.hu actually is not a self-reference, but it includes references to some DKT Gemius auditor data, that is why I believe that it is acceptable to provide that as a source as well. DKT Gemius is a paid audit service in Hungary, however, I am not sure if it is freely available.signed, bence.andras talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks for providing additional citations, they do appear to back up the claims made by the article. The only remaining concern is that while these websites appear to justify these claims, they still don't discuss the subject in-depth, as nominally required by WP:GNG. WP:NNEWSPAPER, which is a relevant subject-specific essay, says that a periodical can be considered notable if it has made a significant impact in its field. Interpreted charitably, portfolio.hu's high readership would clear this hurdle, but it seems odd that a subject specific guideline for newspapers doesn't explicitly say that high readership demonstrates notability (although this could perhaps be explained away due to it being an essay, and not a guideline or policy). I'm tempted to say that notability has been demonstrated, but I would like other editors to chime in as well before withdrawing my nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per bence.andras's statement above:

    I have added two additional, independent third-party sources, which both explicitly mention Portfolio.hu's readership statistics, and confirm the ~1 mln/month number. One of them explicitly states that Portfolio.hu has been the most read financial newspaper in Hungary up to last year, when it was overtaken by a competitor, and came in second place.

    That a source verifies that until last year, "Portfolio.hu [was] the most read financial newspaper in Hungary" establishes it is notable.

    Cunard ( talk) 03:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The claims made in the article to significance are backed up by the sources, they need translating and re-reading etc as foreign language, but I can't see any problem with notability. Szzuk ( talk) 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails GNG. Readership numbers and other popularity measures are not a reason to keep. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep – Unsure about WP:GNG but seems to be widely known in Hungary. There are a few sources that are independent but personally I think they are sufficient. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 8 October 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Steve Wilder

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

Wilder is a bit part actor who is not notable through his acting. No signifaicant roles. All the rest is a news event where he is the perp. That is not the basis for an article. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:59, 28 September 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. Keep argument is not convincing. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Arnaud Sussmann

Arnaud Sussmann (  | 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 violinist created by a now-blocked undisclosed paid editor. The sources provided don't show notability, and I cannot see any WP:MUSICBIO criteria met. It is possible that the awards make him notable but I don't have the knowledge to determine that, so I hope the community can make a determination. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:58, 28 September 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 Kingsoft GmbH. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Space Pilot

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

Hardly notable video game; the "corresponding article" from Italian Wikipedia is equally un-/malsourced. Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Lordtobi ( ✉) 20:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:57, 28 September 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 Kingsoft GmbH. Consensus is to redirect to the dev. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Gravity Force

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

Unnotable game series containing only unreliable references. Fails WP:GNG. Lordtobi ( ✉) 20:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:57, 28 September 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

King Stag

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian ( WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Soviet actors such as Yury Yakovlev and Oleg Yefremov playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:FILM signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am entirely incapable of determining whether there are sources for a 1970 Soviet film; the existing sources appear to be directory entries. I am inclined to keep this as the film had notable actors. The "Criticism" section is nearly unintelligible and should probably be removed. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt: an older film, with many notable actors who were the stars of the Soviet cinema. Sources are likely to exist in Russian. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Alternative search term(s): "Король-олень" Павел Арсенов
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. North America 1000 00:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Andrey Kaykov

Andrey Kaykov (  | 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 actor. I could only find a few softball interviews with Kaykov and profiles on film sites in Russian. Roles do not appear to be notable, nor are they in particularly notable films. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:56, 28 September 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 Move. to List of festivals in Maharashtra. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

List of festivals of Maharashtrian Brahmins

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

A case of WP:OR, self opinion, essay, and blatant lying through teeth. From the entire list, only one festival is exclusive to Brhamhins. Not sure how the creator or other editors came to such idiotic conclusions. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Not being exclusive to Brahmins does not exclude an entry from this list. That is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. There is also no need for the lack of AGF. If there is nothing else to object to I would lean to keep. I only hesitate on that because the page is entirely unsourced, so this is a weak keep due to the unverified information. Spinning Spark 22:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Spinningspark: A: This list has been unsourced since the creation, that is around 8 years. The pages that link to the article arent great either, one is from a subcaste of bramhin, and rest are list articles.
    B: There are around 3,000 castes in India, and 25,000 subcastes. Such an article can be created for each, and every castes. With the only difference being title, and the names of caste-subcaste in the lead.
    I cant see any encyclopaedic or educational value of this list. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    How long it has been unsourced is not relevant. The relevant question at AfD, as always, is whether sources exist at all. Have you done a good faith WP:BEFORE search? From your nomination's lack of AGF and insulting, ad hominem, tone its reasonable to assume you have not. I remain at wewak keep until we've heard from other editors.
    That there are potentially a further 25,000 articles would be a strong argument for non-inclusion at a paper encyclopaedia with limited space. For Wikipedia, it is our raison d'etre. Spinning Spark 08:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Spinningspark: Hi. No, I did three quick searches (different keywords) before nominating. The searches revealed only two relevant results: first is a wordpress blog about "tamil brahmins festival". And the second result is exact copy of this very article. Now, i dont who copied who, but the copies are same. Other than these two, there are no relevant results at all. Not in any kind of sources journals/books/online, RS/non-RS, nothing. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 28 September 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) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

ContentSquare

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

Company's coverage is mostly about funding rounds and is thus WP:ROUTINE. Nonroutine significant coverage does not come from RS. This company does not currently satisfy WP:NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is obvious promotion. Forbes contributors are no reliable sources and reports on funding rounds are not significant coverage. Fais WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING Vexations ( talk) 01:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment New updates are incorporated after reading the concerns and suggestions. I think it contains references from reliable sources independent of the subject, as per WP:NCORP A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Also it's same as WP:GNG but I need help here to understand further. And I think Forbes is a good independent source. I tried to use neutral tone but it may got some advertising tone after new updates. I'll try to neutralize the tone further, if anyone can help editing I'll appreciate it. I am expecting supporting attitude being a newbie. Sorry for anything I may did unintentionally. Thank you CalifornianBlondie ( talk) 20:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
The Forbes sources [60] and [61] are written by contributors. As Forbes notes, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". We don't consider Forbes contributors reliable sources, because the publication does not exercise editorial control over the content of contributor's contributions. Vexations ( talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
73.237.151.248, when you say I fixed the tone and removed promotional wording, are you referring to this diff?
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) 22:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Don Kottmann

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

GNG Fail. Wikipedia is best source as there appear to be no others. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
The Joan Mitchell grant is good for an artist ($25,000), but neither GNG or NARTIST says anything about grants. If it did, we would have to give articles to everyone who ever got a Canada Council, NEA or similar grant. most artists I know have had triple that in grants, and not all are notable. The Regina show is a gallery listing and not independent. The Art Bank is excellent, I did not see that, thank you. However in the total absence of other sources, it's not enough. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Grants from foundations are not notability claims for an artist in and of themselves, especially if the foundation is so little-known that the grant can be "referenced" only to the foundation's own self-published website — the ability of an award or grant to count as an article-clinching notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which the media can be shown to care about that award or grant by reporting its winners or recipients as news. Bearcat ( talk) 04:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Kottmann has been showing in commercial galleries and his work appears to command 5-digit prices. The problem is that there is very little, if any, coverage in independent, reliable sources. There is a documentary about him (an abridged version is available on youtube), but it's been produced by by a school where he teaches, ACAD). There is an exhibition text for an exhibition at stride, More real than nature: The work of Don Kottmann by Tanya E. Hartman, but such texts are usually commissioned, and not created independently. Even if we accept the Mitchell grant and the exhibition at the Nerman museum as sufficient evidence of notability, I cannot find any material that would sustain an article. Vexations ( talk) 14:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. {{ Cite book}} added, but article does not meet NARTIST/BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 07:25, 5 October 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) 22:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Chuck McLachlan

Chuck McLachlan (  | 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 GNG. Tagged since 2009 for notability. I am pulling many AFD candidates from the "list of American Artists since 1900". ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:54, 28 September 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 delete. Page already deleted by Jimfbleak. ( non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 13:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Outbound Cruise

Outbound Cruise (  | 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 L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:21, 28 September 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Rachel Mitchell

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

This is an article about a deputy county attorney in a County Attorney’s office. She does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and no one would have even thought of writing an article about her except for one thing: she was written about in many news stories on one day, September 27, 2018, because of her involvement that day, and that day only, in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. This looks like a classic case of WP:BLP1E, or more accurately, WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. … When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." MelanieN ( talk) 00:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (this will likely be a snow keep) As the nom quoted WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The event was highly significant. Her role was large. Several dozen of the world's most reliable sources mention her prominently in the coverage of the event and several had individual articles about her.
At home in Maricopa County, AZ, the fourth-most populous county in the US, she's pretty well known as a Deputy County Attorney, and there are likely multiple articles on her work there. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, the event was a highly significant. No, her role was not large. She had a bit part. She will never again achieve national notice after 48 hours have passed. You're probably right that this will be a snow keep, because the past two years have shown that virtually everything that involves Trump or the Trump administration always gets kept at AfD, no matter how minor it is. I did have a hope that this one time it might be possible to apply Wikipedia guidelines long enough to realize that this is a classic case of BIO1E. Also, to respond to Casprings below: she already has a one-sentence bio in each of the three relevant articles; that will be enough in 10 years. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
She will never again achieve national notice after 48 hours have passed. How do you know that? WP:CRYSTAL? This one event may make a big change in her career. Also, I'm not sure she was not notable even before this event. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per, Smallbones. Her role here was significant and she is also likely notable for her previous work. Again, this is a bio that will have significance in 10 years. Casprings ( talk) 01:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge Keep per Smallbones. If not keep, merge to the confirmation article for Kavanaugh. Definitely doesn't merit deletion.-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 13:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reasons given in above keep votes. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - County and district attorneys at large offices are frequently mentioned in the news (49 times before 2018 for Mitchell in AZ papers indexed by newspapers.com [66]) and are minor public figures. Calling these passing mentions seems off, in many cases she was literally creating the news story by her decisions. If she was never the subject of a published profile, it would be hard to write a NPOV, NOR article about her. But because of recent events, she now has numerous profiles written about her career. So to me, her position is encyclopedic and her article can be written to satisfy our core content criteria so there is little reason not to keep. However, as she is not the head of the department and for other obvious reasons, I think great care needs to be taken and WP:NPF can be invoked in age-content disputes, etc. Smmurphy( Talk) 21:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Note that she is not the County Attorney. She is a deputy. The County Attorney of Maricopa County is Bill Montgomery (Arizona politician). "Deputy" isn't nothing, but in most DA's offices, all of the lawyers are titled as Deputy DAs. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
You are right, my wording was sloppy, thanks. Smmurphy( Talk) 13:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Added some cites and material. As to notability, compare Erin Morrow Hawley (deemed not notable) and Zina Bash (so far found notable). Mitchell would be more notable for her office if she was compared to other law enforcement figures or prosecutors, e.g., if her policies of law enforcement had been in conflict with Sheriff Arapaho, or say in contrast to efforts in this field in Denver or Dallas. Bjhillis ( talk) 00:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant coverage in a whole bunch of independent sources with lots of coverage in many reliable sources. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This AfD might have gotten very different responses if it hadn't been started during the recentism of the event. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The amount of reliable sources supporting the article makes it difficult to consider any other option at the moment.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The Kavanaugh hearings were obviously notable. Mitchell's role in the hearings was also extremely notable; she was hired to play a certain role, but clearly made many decisions on what to ask and how to ask it. Her decisions were literally history-shaping. It's hard to imagine any argument for deletion. — Lawrence King ( talk) 22:24, 3 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_September_28&oldid=1142614959"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE