The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG. Character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia, page is linked in the body of two articles, a Google search for "John Carik" doesn't turn up any notable results.
Namenamenamenamename (
talk)
22:39, 20 February 2019 (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.
Apparently non-
notable student centre, not one
independent reliable source in our page. It gets
some hits – but no significant coverage – on Gnews because various routine things happen there;
no meaningful hits on Gbooks. According to our article, it has a "dining hall for students to purchase meals"; is this really of encyclopaedic interest or importance? (of course, if it had a dining-hall where students could purchase rolled steel products in bulk, that would be of some interest). This is the sort of mundane trivia that belongs on the school website. Redirect to
University of Kentucky has been tried and reverted,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
18:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep a $200 million dollar building is not a mundane school annexe and is of architectural interest and will most probably be the subject of preservation in the future
Atlantic306 (
talk)
19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, i see at
List of University of Kentucky buildings that there are quite a few buildings that dont have a wikiarticle although "of architectural interest and will most probably be the subject of preservation in the future" (note: i am not saying that these buildings arent wikinotable, just that the argument given above is not relevant:)).
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, or at least leaning that way. To "delete" outright would not be right. At worst the topic could be redirected to its row in the list of UK buildings. However, while the article could be edited down, there is still more valid material in the article than can easily be merged. --
Doncram (
talk)
03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment : We already have two suggestions to Keep the article that are based on the cost of the building. However, cost of constructing something is not a criterion for having an article on that something in Wikipedia! Suggestions based on policy would be far more productive. Take care, all. -
The Gnome (
talk)
06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: All the keep votes only have the building's price tag as a reason to keep it, which doesn't satisfy notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ifnord (
talk)
17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as this is an entirely non-notable person. Attempts to make it seem otherwise rely on youtube hits for
Pewdiepie videos, rather than the subject of the article. Furthermore, whilst an attempt has been made to make it seem well referenced, no references support notability or indeed discuss the subject directly to support this. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)10:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. He is a ghost is material RS. When will the penny drop as to the disconnent with people with "millions" of youtube hits who don't even get a mention in the media-obsessed tier 2 papers? Is it because the hits are fake.?
Britishfinance (
talk)
20:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - An extremely minor character, whose only source being used is two comic issues, which are invalid as reliable sources. I have found no other sources discussing this character except for fan wikis, which are also not valid sources. Merging is not recommended, as there is no sourced material here too merge.
169.232.162.112 (
talk)
18:18, 22 February 2019 (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.
Unnecessary duplication of
Portal axle. While at first glance I thought that this article had additional content worth merging into
Portal axle,
Andy Dingley pointed out that the article is extremely redundant and needlessly long-winded, hence the deletion nomination. signed, Rosguilltalk22:04, 20 February 2019 (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.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. Character appears 15 times in Marvel Wikia. Page is linked in the body of two articles. Would appear to be too minor to add to a list, and there doesn't seem to be a suitable redirect target.
Namenamenamenamename (
talk)
22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Extremely minor character, with no reliable sources demonstrating any sort of notability. As there is no reliably sourced material present in the article, a merge is not needed.
169.232.162.112 (
talk)
18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
County-level GOP chairman who had a failed run at Texas Attorney General. Fails
WP:NPOL and nothing in my search turned up enough to establish
WP:GNG. The only two sources for the article are the subject's mother's obituary and a link to the history of the Bexar County Republican Party. I was planning on PROD-ing this article but given that recently several other articles created by the since-banned
Billy Hathorn were recently de-PRODed by random IPs I figured I might as well skip that step.
GPL93 (
talk)
21:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian in Texas
district courts are not particularly major courts, there are 27 judicial districts in Bexar County alone. Simply being a candidate in a statewide election and being active in local politics fails
WP:NPOL. Furthermore, I could only find one actual independent news article covering him, from his run in 1986. While I understand that the benchmarks that you use can certainly aid in establishing whether or not one is notable, there still aren't any real sources to establish
WP:GNG and he meets no inclusionary standard. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. A judge at this level might qualify for an article if he could be well-sourced as clearing GNG for it, but it's not a level that guarantees every judge an article regardless of sourceability just because they existed — and being a non-winning political candidate doesn't bolster his notability at all. If all we can show for referencing is
primary sources and the routine obituary of his mother, that's not enough to make a judge or a non-winning political candidate notable.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:43, 25 February 2019 (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.
Author Keep I don't understand the nomination at all...the references are reliable sources (Allmusic, the LA Times; the Billboard links have rotted, but chart positions are also published in paper books by
Joel Whitburn, so we can recover those), and the sources and chart positions together establish a claim to notability at
WP:MUSIC. I'm also adding a new reference from
The Fader, another substantial and high-quality source.
Chubbles (
talk)
21:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'll note that AMG is often brought to RSN (perhaps because it is so widely used as a source here), but other discussions of it have been less critical, and it has an editorial board and has published multiple paper books (e.g.,
[1],
[2],
[3]).
Chubbles (
talk)
22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The problems with All Music,
Chubbles (
talk), is not what it once was (as evidenced by the print collections that you linked) but, rather, what it has become under the ownership of the Rovi/TiVo database--a online hybrid of older content with editorial oversight along side the indiscriminate cataloging (per their mission statement) of any and all product for sale, often culled from user submitted promotional materials. Wise editors should use a critical eye in judging content added to that site post-2007; it's fast turning into a music industry equivalent of IMDB and probably half of the newer entries never would have passed muster under the scrutiny of editorial review on merit.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as clearly passes
WP:NMUSIC with coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Billboard, LaTimes and Allmusic which is certainly a reliable source as continually agreed by the WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Music as its bios and reviews are by a professional staff with music knowledge, the above commenter seems to want to disrepute every possible source in contradiction to accepted consensus
Atlantic306 (
talk)
15:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per quality of references.
Atlantic306 (
talk) regarding your characterization of my comments above, I suspect you may be confusing me with another editor? It is not at all my intent...and a favor: although I have been active on wikipedia AfD (primarily musicians) for about 5 years or so, I still do not know where these discussions that arrive at consensus take place. I see them referred to often, and have even asked within comments, like here, how to actively engage myself in the debates over sources, but I have never received an answer. I feel my professional background and current active participation in music press and promotion gives me legitimate insight into identifying truly reliable sources. I've noticed especially a misunderstanding of AllMusic based on, apparently, a long ago consensus among editors who may never actually have worked with or submitted content to AllMuisc. I really want to contribute to the assessments, and I'd appreciate some direction. Thanks.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussions about AMG in particular have unfolded over many years and are scattered through the pages of the RSN discussion board. It comes up a lot because it is far and away the most comprehensive online music database with any sort of editorial control (the other contenders - Discogs and, well, us - being user-submitted), and so is used extensively on music pages. Editors tend to relate to it in one of two camps - "generally, good enough", and "suspect" - and I see miniature discussions pop up about its general reliability on the talk pages of articles fairly frequently, though they typically end with a judgment about some particular artist or piece of musical information rather than a blanket pronouncement about the site in toto. I don't think there's ever been, like, an RfC or something like that to make a definitive determination about when and how it is appropriate to use.
Chubbles (
talk)
18:26, 22 February 2019 (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.
No evidence of notability of this CMS that was released two days ago. Possible COI issue. Fails
WP:GNG for lack of independent sources. -
MrX 🖋
13:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I don't think the OAM confers notability. According to the infobox at
Order of Australia, around 25,000 have been awarded since 1975. The only independent coverage I can find is
this brief local notice of a concert given by her choir group, thus I don't think
WP:GNG is satisfied. As for criterion 4 of
WP:MUSICBIO, "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.", while the article mentions her choir group touring Australia and Canada, the "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" portion is not satisfied. The only citation given is
an event page for a local concert, with the event description mentioning the group "will be touring to the Kathaumixw Festival in Canada in July". I can find no other sources describing a tour.
Colin M (
talk)
23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, unfortunately. The OAM by itself does not confer notability; the albums do not seem to have been released on a major or notable independent label; and I find very little coverage of the subject at all. I wondered if the Hunter Singers might be notable, but there did not seem to be much coverage of them, either.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
15:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL. Of the 5 cited sources, three are obituaries (only one is actually his, and another is his self-published book. An additional search turned up no sources that would establish notability.
GPL93 (
talk)
20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing here is a strong
WP:NPOL pass — it looks like he was only ever a local political organizer, and never an actual officeholder at any notability-conferring level of government — and the referencing is nowhere near strong enough to make him a special case over and above the thousands of other people who've done the same kind of stuff without getting Wikipedia articles for it.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:39, 25 February 2019 (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.
No coverage in reliable sources beyond mere mentions. Most sources cited to the article don't even mention the subject (and are instead used to support claims about individuals affiliated with or recipients of the award). The closest thing to significant reliable source coverage was
[4], which mentions the award and the gala it is awarded at, but largely in the context of the controversial nature of the award's sponsor,
Henley & Partners. Searching online, I was unable to find anything other than PR. signed, Rosguilltalk20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Henley & Partners. Frankly, I think most of the pages related to Henley have major issues with
COI and
UPE. This seems no different. I think some mention of this "award" could be mentioned in the main H&P article, but it does not seem to deserve its own. –
Broccoli & Coffee(
Oh hai)20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Rosguill: I suppose you're right that my other complaint is perhaps irrelevant to this discussion. I mean to say that I've long had issues with pages related to H&P for possible COI edits, and the fact that this Award page exists doesn't surprise me. All of that said, I think there is room for mention of the award on H&P's own page, but the award itself is not worthy or notable enough for its own page. Hope that helps clarify. –
Broccoli & Coffee(
Oh hai)21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nom. This is a PROMO article for a non-notable award. Not fully comfortable merging this as it is non-notable PROMO content which is not obviously suitable for company article.
Britishfinance (
talk)
23:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This person does not seem to be a notable musician--the sources are two online album reviews, plus a collection of trivial mentions in festival lineups. (I have removed two other references: one a google search of the artist's name, the other a 'buzzfeed community contributor' listicle.) Googling turned up
three additionalonline albumreviews by bloggers and freelance journalists, a press release for the album on pr.co, and
a short interview; none of these seem sufficient to me to confer notability.
gnu5701:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I would have to disagree with the choice of deletion.
This artist has been regarded within the LGBT community within music. As well as being featured and interviewed alongside other artist such as Cakes Da Killa back in 2015, she also was featured on an official music chart with ChartsInFrance. Chartsinfrance typically does not accept or post songs released by non notable artist. That page also has a Wikipedia and is considered notable.
Lastly, this page was and has been approved since it's inception last year and has went through minimal editing, mostly from other editors and contributors who haven't flagged it previously. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MusicLovingSoul (
talk •
contribs) 08:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Copied from talk page --
DannyS712 (
talk)
21:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:MUSICBIO. I don't find the blog reviews to be reliable sources (e.g.
the musicexistence.com blog has a header link labelled "Get Your Content On Our Site" inviting artists who want coverage to contact them). It's worth noting that
Spinnup, the music distributor the artist is signed with, seems to be a sort of self-serve music publishing service. I also don't find the inclusion on the chartsinfrance website to be evidence of notability (despite the site's name, the link doesn't seem to indicate that this artist had any albums or songs that charted anywhere).
Colin M (
talk)
20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Actually this is doubly redundant: to the abovementioned
List of bird genera (which however is rather bare-bones), but also to the genus lists in the subfamily articles (
Trochilinae and
Phaethornithinae). (Plus there is the
List of hummingbirds, which does have stand-alone utility because it allows lookup by common name.) I think we are covered here. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Autobiography with no evidence of depth-of-coverage in multiple reliable sources to satisfy
WP:BIO criteria. Notability claim appears to hinge on winning a boxing writing award, and award that doesn't appear to be notable in itself. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep there are plenty of sources for this. I haven't put any in yet because I seem to spend so much time these days working on AfDed articles, but I may get to it.
Mccapra (
talk)
19:16, 20 February 2019 (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.
Merge as the one who marked the article per my views on the talk page. The attacks on the HDP in that period are notable as a phenomenon but not these specific incidents. Should be merged to
Peoples' Democratic Party (Turkey) and that article could be separated if enough content accumulates. --
GGT (
talk)
01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as passes criteria 5 of
WP:NMUSIC having two albums released on a major label, namely
Decca. Also has coverage in national reliable sources such as Billboard and professional reviews such as All Music. This band is pre-internet so has book sources
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:30, 20 February 2019 (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.
This article stretches the rules for
promotion and
inherited notability. While he has a lot of production credits, almost all of the sources in the article are about records that he produced, and he is generally listed briefly as the producer or not mentioned at all. The sources that are about him specifically are almost entirely
routine listings at self-promotional and retail/streaming sites. The article has one supported statement on how he was mentioned briefly by NYT:
[6], and he did get one moderately robust interview:
[7]. (Those two sources are already in the article.) Otherwise, there is not enough
reliable and significant coverage that is specifically about him and his work, which is evident after searches under all of his many professional names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All I could find were press releases or false positives of the Dutch "Mono en Stereo", nothing else. Without sources, I can't salvage this, and a passing mention in the NYT isn't enough.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and his position as school board member isn't enough to pass
WP:NPOL. Like most articles by the now-banned
Billy Hathorn none of the sources referenced establish notability. There are as follows: 1) his basic public records from Ancestry.com; 2) his obit in the local newspaper; 3) another obit in the same local newspaper; Sources 4 and 9 are
simply a funeral home obit reprinted in the local newspaper; 5) his funeral announcement; 6) a brief passing mention that he was the manager of a since-liquidated ranch; 7) a paper submitted at an Agricultural Research Institute conference; and 8) a list of political contributions.
GPL93 (
talk)
15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete notability is not inherited. The UISD may have received coverage for the decision to do bilingual education, but no evidence is presented that this lead to coverage of Finley, especially no evidence of coverage outside of the local media market.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Serving on a county school board is not a notability freebie under
WP:NPOL, but this is referenced exclusively to the local death coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any local political figure. This is not strong evidence that he's a special notability case over and above most other school board trustees.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:37, 25 February 2019 (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.
There are over 6000 species of salticids. Every time a species is transferred to a different genus, synonymized, or unsynonymized (which happens on a weekly basis) at least three (and often 4 or 5) articles have to be updated: the relevant
Lists of Salticidae species (usually 1 to add to and another to remove from), the relevant genus article, and relevant species articles if they exist. Due to all the work involved, updates are rarely made and these lists are basically stuck in 2016 (when they were generate with a bot). These lists are completely redundant, as all the same information is covered by
List of Salticidae genera and the relevant genus articles (only 1 of which is currently a red link). For comparison, the number of bird species is roughly the same order of magnitude, but no one has created
List of bird species. Instead we have the manageable
List of birds, which lists only the subgroups, while the actual species lists are one or two levels further down the article hierarchy. For salticids, we have twice the maintenance burden, and a fraction of the editors. I nominated these lists for deletion in 2014, but they were kept mainly because
Sarefo regenerated the lists with a bot. Unless he is willing to keep doing that on an ongoing basis, these lists cannot be maintained by hand. Since this list was generated, over 200 species have had their names changed, but only a fraction have been fixed in these lists. Please let us restore some sanity and not have multiple copies of the same information which cannot be realistically kept updated and in sync!
Kaldari (
talk)
14:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note. I've added the following subarticles to the deletion nomination:
This does seem odd to me, to lump all the genera and species of a family into a list, and then split it up by first initial. If the number of taxa in the family were small enough to fit on a single page, that would be OK. I don't see how this current setup is useful though. --
Nessie (
talk)
15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Pointless multiplication of required maintenance effort (which clearly isn't being expended).
List of Salticidae genera does all the necessary work. "Do no try to keep massive redundant lists of invertebrate species" should be a policy item (joking...) - it's a thankless task, with minimum pay-off for the reader. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete and all other "Lists of SPIDER-FAMILY species". My understanding is that when
WP:WikiProject Spiders was started, there were few genus articles, and so it was thought that these lists of species by family would be useful. Now they are not. They are redundant to the usual system whereby:
@
Cygnis insignis: there should be nothing in these lists that is not duplicated in
List of Salticidae genera and then in the lists of species for each genus – lists that should either be in the genus articles, if the list is short, or in separate "List of SPIDER-GENUS species" articles if long. Clearly it would be good to check that this is the case.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
07:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Oh, I had overlooked the list of genera, that is what I have used before. Again, your general guidance on where to list what is eminently sensible, now that building of content is more advanced. Family articles full of species are something I have felt needed rationalising, gutting rather than updating seems prudent as taxonomies continue to be resolved.
cygnis insignis07:22, 21 February 2019 (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.
More lists
@
RoySmith: By the same logic as was used above, all of the following should be deleted. What's the best way of proceeding?
@
Peter coxhead: Another monster list of lists, it's the kind of thing a bot/script should take care of. I say this with particular fervor after the tedious, repetitive, and necessary cleanup following the previous lists deletions. –
Athaenara ✉ 14:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oh, that's the rest of the spiders? I would certainly back the same treatment, following the above solid consensus. Options appear to be a) having an AfD for the entire lot, which seems reasonably efficient, or b) asking a taxonomically-minded admin to do it (not sure RoySmith considers himself such :). --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
14:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)reply
AfD certainly worked well above, but spider experts may determine on their well-informed own that these lists are superfluous and burdensome and offload them via {{db-G6}} tagging or something similar. At least one (no, I'm not clicking down the whole list) was created by
Peter coxhead, he's certainly free to {{db-g7}} any of those. –
Athaenara ✉ 01:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Two points:
Yes, I created some – for consistency. I never agreed with them in principle (they were created before I joined WP:SPIDERS).
As editors found with the Salticidae lists, the real problem is that the tradition has been to put a link to the "list of spider family species" in |diversity= in the taxobox of every genus in that family. So there are many, many articles that need to be fixed if the species list article is deleted. This really needs a bot.
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.
Revert to earlier version. The version linked by Postdlf looks reasonable. Our normal naming convention would have this at
Lists of legal terms, so I suggest it be moved to that title, and keep the current title as a redirect, as it seems like a plausible thing somebody might type into a search box. --
RoySmith(talk)13:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete This article has been speedily deleted two times. Moderation Management does not meet the
notability guidelines for an organization; it has always been a small organization (200 - 500 members at most), and more noted for its failures (attacking people who reported the
murder of a five-year-old girl; having its founder kill two people in a drunk driving accident) than its successes (which, as per a 2001 paper, are dubious: About 80% of members drank 4+ times a week and over half of members had 5+ drinks per drinking day, which is not moderate drinking by any reasonable stretch of the imagination)
Defendingaa (
talk)
14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
If we’re going to keep the article, we’re going to have to make sure to keep it pretty short and make it crystal clear that this small (and, IMHO, not notable) group never worked. The only survey I have seen about its members drinking habits shows that its members, by and large, were never moderately drinking, and its founder even, at one point, admitted that “moderation management is nothing but alcoholics covering up their problem”. I am worried that this is going to be a source of numerous edit wars, when some alcoholic in denial will try and say “but this
WP:MEDPOP article says that there are many people moderately drinking in Moderation Management” and then the article will drift back in to being an article endorsing pseudo-medicine which, quite bluntly, does not workDefendingaa (
talk)
15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Defendingaa, the decision about what the article should say should be based on the balance of what independent reliable sources say, rather than on what any Wikipedia editors might think. I suspect that such sources would tend to agree with your opinion, but I haven't looked widely enough to be certain, and it's the sources that we should go with.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There’s some
WP:MEDPOP nonsense out there which claims that Moderation Management works (without citing any scientific evidence supporting this conclusion); there is very little actual science on MM’s efficacy, since MM is not a notable organization. What little science we have shows MM’s members, by and large, drinking quite heavily, but the science only shows this raw data without commentary or making the obvious conclusion.
Defendingaa (
talk)
16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notability is about coverage in independent reliable sources, not our agreement or disagreement with or the number of members or the degree of success of an organisation, and the Google Books and Scholar searches linked above find plenty of such coverage. Everything else is a matter of editing to ensure that the article fairly reflects the coverage in reliable sources, which on an initial look, seem to be predominantly either sceptical about this organisation's claims or downright critical.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Return to draft I initially listed this article, and RHaworth deleted it, as G11, for unimprovable promotionalism .
Scarpy however convinced me that it was improvable, so I restored it, and moved it to draft to so it might be improved--and I began myself improving it. Bringing it back from draft to mainspace only for the purpose of deleting it is inappropriate.I think there's consensus that this is not an acceptable way to deal with an draft, because it defeats the purpose of draft space. (The DRV back in 2007 was an appeal of a A7 speedy for notability. I, along with almost everyone else , did not take promotionalism so seriously as now, & I don't think I considered then anything but notability. ), DGG (
talk )
17:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
fwiw, I judged on the basis of the list of requirements for participation and the list of advantages, which together made up most of the article. Such a pattern is characteristic of promotional articles. I agree I should have looked more carefully. DGG (
talk ) 00
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this offers nothing to suggest that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of being a candidate: it's referenced 75 per cent to raw tables of election results, and 25 per cent to a single newspaper endorsement, and literally cites zero sources suggesting that he ever got enough media coverage as "co-owner of Glass Doctor" to get over our notability standard for businesspeople in lieu of flunking the one for politicians.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Isn't presumed notable per NFOOTY, as he hadn't played in the super league. While the subject has received fairly wide international coverage following his serious injury in a lighting strike on the turf -
[8][9][10][11] - per
WP:BLP1E this doesn't make the bio notable. Furthermore, the event does not seem to pass
WP:NEVENT (I don't see sustained coverage) and the article doesn't cover the event anyways - so there's little scope for renaming the article for the lightning strike event. The article (which is also titled wrong, I think) as presently construed could've been BLPPRODed.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:15, 20 February 2019 (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.
This is a foreign word, not a loan word. Although it might make sense to include this content in an article on the Estonian military, foreign words should not have articles in the English Wikipedia.
Coastside (
talk)
06:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The deletion rationale is nonsensical: what exactly is a "foreign word"? More importantly, per
WP:MILUNIT, national "battalion-level or equivalent" units are notable, and an Estonian malev is larger than a battalion.
Jpatokal (
talk)
11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
This is a foreign word, not a loan word. Although it might make sense to have this content in an article on the Estonian military, it is not appropriate to have foreign terms as articles in the English Wikipedia.
Coastside (
talk)
06:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The deletion rationale is nonsensical: what exactly is a "foreign word"? More importantly, per
WP:MILUNIT, national "battalion-level or equivalent" units are notable, and an Estonian malev is larger than a battalion.
Jpatokal (
talk)
11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into single article. The information in these articles is useful and well-sourced, but probably better off in a single article about Estonian military divisions.
Jpatokal (
talk)
11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
If there is consensus, I recognize the argument that this content is worth keeping in an article on the Estonian military, and I would support that. If that is how this gets resolved, these article titles should redirect to that article with {{R from alternative language}}. In my opinion that includes Malev (military unit), which is still a foreign term vs. a loan word. As additional guidance, entries in such an article should use English with foreign words secondarily. For example: instead of Kompanii (English: company) such an article should use something like: Estonian military company (
Estonian: Kompanii).
Coastside (
talk)
16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Regarding what I mean by "non-English words", I provided all the relevant policy links above and no one else seems confused. I can't clarify for you any better than that. Regarding the "canonical" list of "valid" reasons for deletion I would point out that the policy says "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...", so be careful about
wikilawyering. Regardless, I understand your position to be that you don't think these articles should be deleted and that you think it was inappropriate that I proposed they be deleted.
Coastside (
talk)
02:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Conclusion
Based on the constructive suggestions above (thank you), I think the right approach is to merge these articles into
Estonian Land Forces#Organization with redirects (from alternative language) to the merged article, and change of primary topic for
Salk to Jonas Salk. I'll leave this discussion open a bit longer for additional comments, and then barring objection I'll close the AFD and add {{merge to}} for those articles with reference to this discussion.
Coastside (
talk)
02:35, 21 February 2019 (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.
This is a foreign word. It's not a loan word but rather an Estonian word. The primary topic for "Salk" should be the virologist (Jonas Salk) or else the disambiguation page "Salk (disambiguation)". It's certainly wrong for the primary topic to be a foreign term.
Coastside (
talk)
06:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into single article. The information in these articles is useful and well-sourced, but probably better off in a single article about Estonian military divisions.
Jpatokal (
talk)
11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I think it possible for book series like this to notable, e.g., the Lecture Notes book series is likely notable. But for this smaller, more specialized series, I was unable to find any secondary sources reviewing the series, or discussing its impact, etc. Springer has many specialized book series and merging this one into the main Springer article would lend undue weight to the series. Hence, delete. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}16:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete There is a reasonable amount of "media personality" reporting but it is all routine as far as I can see. Subject does not seem to have done anything notable / creative yet. The one, minor, niche award is not enough to get over the GNG line. Looks like someone career driven, so probably TOOSOON.
Aoziwe (
talk)
08:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Article is sourced and detailed. Bracey has hosted his own self-titled national television program for 4 years and has hosted national sports program Sports Sunday, as well as the front man of the Nine Network's NRL and Australian Open coverage. Easily meets BIO and as explained in the previous sentence and the article meets criteria 1 of WP:ENT "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...--
Whats new?(talk)04:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
You always vote keep in articles on journalists you have created, and they have always gotten deleted. It is, perhaps, a time to get a hint, that your interpretation of what is notable is not the same a community, and adjust your understanding? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep While it is indeed a "collection of hashtags put together by the page creator" (me) I'd disagree that it's entirely random, as every instance mentioned on the page is genuinely an annual event in which people revitalise the hashtag or topic (not all have a tag). The examples have 'escaped' from Twitter's confines and have been written about in fairly sensible, citable articles and some have taken on other effects in the "real world", eg raising money. Granted it's not the most important reflection of sociological phenomena but I do think it's more than just internet whimsy (I didn't include "Balustrade Lanyard" among them
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/going-viral-brl33whb6dt and
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/he-was-the-peoples-balustrade-lanyard) and reflects one way in which a popular social media tool is used to share thoughts and information among people who may not otherwise know each other.
JoBrodie (
talk)
09:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Citrivescence: Well, no, because obviously I don't want it to be deleted. It just seems that if this was a requirement of the list, and the list already couldn't satisfy it, then I'm not sure why it was opened for discussion in the first place.
JoBrodie (
talk)
09:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I could be convinced to !vote in favor of keeping this page if anyone found more secondary sources about "annual Twitter traditions" as a distinct category of thing. I suspect that someone has written about this, but it's the sort of writing that is easily lost amid the noise.
XOR'easter (
talk)
21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Reply I'm not sure if anyone has written an off-Wikipedia article about the various Twitter traditions (alas), all the articles and references I found pretty much focus on one theme / tradition. I'm fairly sure there have been news articles and blog posts about Twitter's use as a 'second screen', where people watch TV and share comments about it live via hashtag - a different sort of Twitter tradition perhaps. Anyway, I have found the following references...
Hmmm, without sources discussing the concept of an annual Twitter event, I'm not sure a list of them would obey the letter of
WP:LISTN (although I personally wouldn't find it all that objectionable). Honestly, this material could go in the
hashtag article without significant trouble.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:55, 27 February 2019 (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.
Comment It has a source in the External links section, from which the creator copy-pasted the vast majority of the text, which is something worth checking before nominating to AfD.
Bakazaka (
talk)
02:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being superintendent of a single city's local school board is not an automatic inclusion freebie under
WP:NPOL — it might get a person into Wikipedia on the vanishingly rare occasion that they could be referenced well enough (i.e. nationalizing coverage) to make them a special case over and above most other school superintendents, but nothing remotely like that is being demonstrated here.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:30, 25 February 2019 (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.
Does not meet
WP:NORG,
WP:GNG. Virtually all of the article's substance is cited to the subject's website, press releases, or to articles interviewing employees of the group. The sole independent coverage is routine coverage of the subject's bankruptcy filing in 2015. I wasn't able to find anything better searching online in English and French. signed, Rosguilltalk02:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The article requires enhancement and additional sources, which is work in progress. The business in its current form has not received significant coverage, but this is not uncommon in the family office and wealth management industries, where privacy and confidentiality of the founding family and family clients is paramount[1][2] . However, there is information and coverage relating to
family members who have been instrumental in its development, component businesses and
predecessors to the current Group.
The rationale for producing the article was that a number of disparate articles exist on Hottinger family members and component businesses, including and besides those which make up the current group. The Hottinger Group article seeks to unify and add to available content by describing the continuing legacy of the Hottinger family within financial services. A number of directly comparable firms in the industry (in terms of history, family origins, services offered, category of business) most notably Stonehage Fleming, feature as standalone Wikipedia articles. Further, there is an incomplete picture at present with articles on the Swiss bank
Hottinger & Cie and the
Hottinguer family (as well as individual articles on various members, but nothing in relation to surviving businesses bearing the family name). This appeared to me to be a gap.
The business was publicly recognised in the 2017
City of London Wealth Management Awards as Family Office of the Year, and the following year (2018) as Portfolio Manager of the Year. The business is nominated again in three categories for 2019 (results pending). This demonstrates notability and meaningful activity within the industry.
Notability on Wikipedia is determined primarily by the availability of coverage in independent reliable sources–while I can certainly understand that a family banking group would value privacy, when assessing whether or not the subject merits a Wikipedia article, we need to judge based on the availability of information, and the fact that the subject has a good reason for keeping such information to a minimum does not absolve us of the requirement. Furthermore, notability is not
WP:INHERITED–just because some Hottinger individuals and companies are notable does not necessarily mean that the "Hottinger Group" is notable. Regarding the awards won, business awards are rarely indicators of notability, and the rewards in question appear to have virtually no coverage outside of PR publications, indicating to me that they are not exceptions. Businesses in general are held to very high notability standards on Wikipedia, (see
WP:ORGCRITE for specifics). As for the article on
Stonehage Fleming, well,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Finally, I noticed that on your talk page, there's discussion of a previous username that you used, "HG 1786", which would indicate that you may have a
conflict of interest with the subject. Please declare any such conflict of interest or lack thereof. signed, Rosguilltalk17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
In a Family Office the principals and the business are often intertwined (as in this case) so arguably there is a case for inherited notability. With respect to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, arguments on this basis can be valid and helpful in assessing notability and making decisions about the future of the article, which is the reason for raising the comparison.
Given that the family history is several hundred years old, not all sources are easily searchable online. I appreciate that you have conducted online searches in reaching your decision to flag the article for possible deletion, but there is additional relevant information in relation to the Hottinger family and their historical business interests located in older French language books, which almost certainly would not have appeared in an online search. With the help of a native French speaker (which I am not!), I am compiling additional references and material on the subject at present.
Whilst I understand that certain standards have to be upheld, there is no requirement for an article to be perfect upon first publication. I considered that this article was missing from the suite of information currently available about the Hottinger family and their business activities. By its existence as an article, it's possible to improve the quality of collective knowledge on the subject and also makes things easier for those without prior knowledge to understand how the somewhat confusing collection of individuals and businesses fit in with each other.
To my knowledge I have complied with the conflict of interest guidelines by disclosing at the outset that I have a connection with one of the entities mentioned within the subject of the article. I derive no benefit from the subject having an article, I simply felt it was a gap not to have information available on the current operating business interests of the family. I am now contributing to the discussion in the interests of ensuring that deletion policies are applied consistently and fairly. You are correct in pointing out that I misunderstood the username policy upon joining and as you saw, this was immediately addressed when someone flagged it to me. If there is something more I should be doing that I have missed, I would be happy to rectify this. Signed,
EW1987 (
talk)
21:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
This page needs enhancing rather than deleting.Hottinger (Hottinguer) family are of historical importance.Hottinger Group page should contain the narrative of their current and historical business activities.There are many integration facts between Hottinger family and the world of finance that are missing from this page. They had business dealings and close associations with the Delessert, Rothschild, Cazenove, Baring and Stern families, none of which has been captured in the page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Keeop9021 (
talk •
contribs)
09:11, 20 February 2019 (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 keep. See
Speedy keep criteria #1 - The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. (bolding added to relevant parts). Please see
Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for proposing a merger. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
03:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)reply
Poorly cited stub article for a spin-off website with possibly falsified references. Might fail
WP:SUSTAINED coverage as all cited articles point back to 2016. Although there are definitely post-2016 sources that briefly mention individual professors being targeted by the subject, it might be more appropriate to merge those and the rest of this article of its parent organization
Turning Point USA.
Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable show of limited local interest, only performed twice by local (amateur?) cast. No supporting sources (all those given either pre-dated the play by a century or were not relevant to it.
Emeraude (
talk)
09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Partial merge to a new section on theater under the
Sedalia, Missouri cultural heading. The topic fails to have attracted any state-wide or national press, but the locals seem to have made a fuss. That local press accordingly would seem appropriate for the Sedalia page, with succinct coverage of the play and ideally others (or the theater house).
24.84.14.158 (
talk)
20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
KeepMissouri Life Magazine is not a local source. It also has two local news sources which cover it in depth, used as references on the page. (I just added them myself).--
Epiphyllumlover (
talk)
19:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
A Sedalia Christmas Dec. 5-7. Traditional holiday music and local author, Becky Imhauser, brings Christmas to life with stories and images of past celebrations. Liberty Center Association for the Arts. 7 PM Fri.-Sat.; 2 PM Sun. $5. 660-827-3228".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Draftify - inability to find suitable sources, let alone to pass
WP:NCORP. Notwithstanding someone who might manage a better job than I at searching the turkish sources. As a side note, I suspect the article could probably be considered to fail
G11 (advertising).
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Poorly written under-referenced article (candidate for "draftification"), but the business is notable. 200,000 tonnes per year of pulp and "the biggest pulp paper and cardboard manufacturing company in Turkey as well as in the Balkans and Middle East" is a material business. Here is a write up in Turkish Fortune
MopakBritishfinance (
talk)
20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. Added two more refs. Their MOPAK SEKA deal does turn up a few turkish articles so I translated one of them. I think this will pass WP:GNG but all references are in Turkish.
Britishfinance (
talk)
21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I very rarely do a third relist, but I think this needs a closer look in light of BF's added refs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
Britishfinance: - the Turkish fortune article is good, however the Hürriyet article appears to be an interview, without independent commentary - thus it doesn't help give any notability. Given the strictness, of
WP:NCORP, it still doesn't meet notability. I'd be happy enough to !vote draftification (or even userfy) if you'd prefer me to do that?
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. @
Nosebagbear: I have struggling with this to find more good RS on notability. Not sure if the issue is that they just don't exist (I would still be surprised given the scale of their plants), or whether I just can't see them via Turkish-translated websites (i.e. I am trying to screen them using English terms). Not sure I can get anything more. Would love if anybody with skills in this area could definitively say whether all I have is all there is; perhaps draftify is an option. Am open-minded eitherway. thanks
Britishfinance (
talk)
22:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Well I've changed to draftify for the moment. Another look would be great - I think there is a list of admins who speak certain languages, but I can't remember where it is. Perhaps a message at the turkish project? We really just need a few key words translated to help the hunt - a machine translate is sufficient for checking the actual sources.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:CORP. Three sources, all are non-independent. The company is very actively promoting itself. I think there is no chance of it meeting WP:CORP. Do not draftify, but delete with prejudice. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
11:03, 22 February 2019 (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.
This page should be deleted because it contains nothing of value in addition to what is/can/should be included in NRHP-listed
Williams Historic Business District, NRHP-listed
Williams Residential Historic District and
Williams, Arizona. This is duplicative, and as far as I can tell only has been created to allow for original research to be added, potentially, about properties that the article creator might want to make publicity about. In no other state besides Arizona are there any articles like this one. I don't know why, but the article creator seems to want to work outside the framework which works well for covering notable historic properties everywhere else in the U.S.
Doncram (
talk)
23:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Specifically, the creator wishes to cover buildings that they personally deem to be historical. They are willing to note "However, not all of the individual structures qualify as historical within the district. This is due to the fact that most are owned by private owners who have the undeniable right to demolish or change the façade of the structure for commercial reasons if he or she so desires." Which is basically correct, that owners can opt out of NRHP listing. However, if the property is not NRHP-listed, and not deemed historical by any other body, then IMHO it is not Wikipedia-notable. We are not well served by lists of properties deemed notable solely by one Wikipedia editor. --
Doncram (
talk)
23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep- I'm surprised how fast you were in nominating this well written article for deletion. It is not the first time that you have attempted to have an article which I have written deleted, why is that?. As a matter of fact by the tone of the nomination it seems as if you have something personal against my contributions. I go through a lot of trouble visiting the towns in Arizona to take pictures and document historical structures.
1. This article is not about the Williams Historic Business District per se. The particular structures pictured in the Historic Business District section were not deemed historical by me. They have been recognized as historical by the Camp Verde Historical Society and have plaques provided identifying them as such. Some are also individually listed in the National Register of Historic Place,
2. I do not work outside of the framework nor have provided original research as claimed. The sources in regard to the properties are included, among them the National Register of Historic Places forms. Of course I have dedicated the series to towns and cities in Arizona, because that is where I live.
3. As stated above I am not the person who deems the mentioned properties as historical. Even though the properties are within the NRHP historic district not all with the exception of those listed are historical. These building are mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places form.
4. The houses in the article are also considered as such in Williams Residential Historic District National Register of Historic Places form. Wikipedia does not have an article about the Williams Residential Historic District.
5, Included in the article are the places listed in the National Register of Historic Places within the Williams Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest, because that section of the forest is in Williams and the Williams Ranger District Office also.
6. Nominator, please do not add your personal POV comments to the article.
Comment. (ec to edits revising their reply) About me nominating this promptly after your creation, that is nonsense. You linked to one or more articles that I created, so it showed up on my watchlist, and based on previous stuff I knew this was likely dreck (IMO) that should be deleted. The prompter the better.
We (Wikipedia editors) have a framework, in which we cover notable historic properties in the U.S.: we list them within articles about NRHP-listed historic districts. And we make links to those articles from articles about towns/cities/counties, from sections about their history. We don't go on about places that we personally think are old and interesting, without sourcing. There is no reason to have a new, separate series of list-articles going outside of the existing system. Wherever you mention houses/buildings that are listed in a NRHP historic district, well they should be covered in that list-article instead. Wherever you mention something else, as you have in others in your personal series of Arizona list-articles, it basically should not be covered. In your reply you mention places covered by a Camp Verde Historical Society, I am not sure about those. Are those covered in a NRHP historic district? Is it an independent, valid source? If there are notable such places, not NRHP-listed, why not just mention them in the Williams, Arizona town article's history section? I seriously, deeply, do not understand your quest to create a different structure in Arizona. It seems egotistical and inappropriate to me, duplicative where you agree with NRHP or other historic district listing, and inappropriate/non-encyclopedic wherever it is based on your personal judgments. --
Doncram (
talk)
03:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Your statement "It seems egotistical and inappropriate to me, duplicative where you agree with NRHP or other historic district listing, and inappropriate/non-encyclopedic wherever it is based on your personal judgments.", seems as if you are getting a little personal. You state here "The prompter the better", that seems to me as pushing your POV on this nom. As I have stated my article is about strctures per se which have been sourced. You state "We (Wikipedia editors)", I don't know, but I have been here and editing for, let me see. 15 years with over 700 articles under my belt. Anyway my friend, let's discontinue and put an end to this discussion and let the community decide the fate of the article.
Tony the Marine (
talk)
04:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Not Fair - To all the editors who read this, the nominator has taken it upon himself to use my work (Intellectual work) and images, which he is criticizing here, and in a state of "plagiarism" has posted and copied them exactly word for word on the
Williams Historic Business District article. see:
[12]. Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another
author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own
original work. Use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. He did this before a decision on this article's fate could be reached. This inappropriate act in turn could have affected the decision of the voters and the outcome of this nomination.
Tony the Marine (
talk)
03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge & Redirect, subject of this stand-alone list article falls within the
scope of the article
Williams, Arizona. That article does not yet meet
WP:TOOBIG, as such I am of the opinion that a sub-article or stand-alone list article, would be at this time best as an embedded-list within the Williams, Arizona article. When the parent article becomes too large, this article can be re-created as a stand-alone list as a sub article.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo)
20:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Some kind of annoyingly complicated merge/split up - Here's the thing. Doncram has taken a strangely hostile approach to this AfD for some reason, and copy/pasting the material this article contains without attribution (while arguing to delete the original content he copied [!?]) is a bad enough copyvio that it could probably go to ANI (lest he take care to promptly remedy the situation). Ultimately, however, the underlying point is more or less sound. That is, what is a "historic property" and why do we need a stand-alone list of such properties apart from the NRHP pages, the pages about the properties within those NRHP-listed districts, and the page about the town? There's no need to delete here, as there's more than a little bit of usable content. The problem is that it was compiled in this page, rather than in the pages that already exist... — Rhododendritestalk \\
22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Doncram, I respect the quality of the work you have faithfully produced here year after year about historic sites and, being a history fanatic, also admire the thoroughness of the contributions you have made, but I respectfully disagree with your position in this case. Let me explain why.
In analyzing, I see there are 2 arguments against the List article: (1) Duplication of contents/internal WP copyvio, and (2) Non-notability/OR. So it's really 1 argument: Duplication of contents (if the property in Tony's list is already in the NRHP) and Non-notability (if the property isn't in the NRHP). -- sort of a catch 22.
If we have articles about roads in AZ and then we make
Lists of roads in AZ. We have articles about rivers in AZ and then we make a
List of rivers in AZ. We have articles about museums in AZ and then we make a
List of museums in AZ. So, clearly, if we have articles about historic places in AZ, then why not make a list of historic places in AZ (or particular cities for that matter, like this one)? So the argument goes "because the Williams, AZ, list contains places that aren't listed in the NRHP". But, to me, that's a non-argument because not all roads in the List of Roads, rivers in the List of Rivers, nor museums in the List of Museums need to have an article written to be listed in those 3 respective lists. In fact, the opposite is generally true, that someone will write a List article about, say, Mountains in Alaska, before other editors will write the article about each mountain. Morale: Not having and article written yet, isn't a requirement for road/river/museum to be listed in their respective list article. In fact, notability, which is a requirement for an article subject, isn't a requirement for the individual members listed in a list article.
There's nothing sacred about the NRHP; they are only a guide, they are not the law of the land. It doesn't matter that the NRHP selects and lists places, because, for example, the Sierra Club has their own listing of great hiking trails, but we don't limit ourselves to writing articles about trails listed in Sierra Club's lists. It's a free country; we don't need to limit ourselves to go only by what the US Govt (via its NRHP list) says are historic places. We can do our own (they don't need to be backed up by the Gov't; they only need to be backed up by RS). And, no, that's not OR if there are entities, other than the NRHP, that consider the site historic. And we certainly don't need to limit ourselves to go only the NRHP list if there are others places that are equally historic but that NRHP doesn't list for reasons that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with history.
If, however, Tony's list contains any copy violations, then certainly those needs to be deleted or paraphrased ASAP. Or if his List article contains any places listed without any cites to back it up (say, Tony's grandmother's house or what have you), then that needs to be corrected. But copyvios, if any, or the lack of cites, in and of themselves, aren't reason enough to DELETE the entire List article.
If there is something in Tony's List that isn't in the NRHP list and isn't historic and you can point it out by name(s), then we can look at specifics, but for now, since we are dealing in generalities only so far, this is how I vote.
Mercy11 (
talk)
05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:ORG. Prod was removed by the article creator with the explanation that "library systems are generally considered notable", which is absolutely false. Come up with a reliable non-local source that discusses this quasi-governmental agency in detail and I'll happily withdraw this. Stating there is something inherently notable about a library system is both false and lazy. I see nothing either here or
WP:BEFORE that shows notability and
WP:OTHERCRAP is just that.
John from Idegon (
talk)
20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is not a referendum on the notability of libraries in general, but rather on whether this library is notable. They are not and this not the place to discuss that. I'd say if you want to establish some sort of consensus on the general notability of libraries,
WP:VPP would be the place. So no, I won't be doing that.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I do not like how this page is listed for AfD less than 3 hours after it's creation, that's not assuming good faith, and gets a little close to
WP:BITING (in fact, this exact scenario is nicely outlined there). I would like to try and help this article before I make my final decision, for now though this page is strikingly similar to dozens of other library consortium pages, most of which can be found at the Category:Library consortia page. I would like to note that despite what the nominator claims, library systems are historically voted as "keep" at AfD a large amount of the time. This is not a referendum on this page as it currently stands, but is it say there are countless examples in the talk page of
WP:Libraries and in other places to show that library systems are generally notable.
SEMMENDINGER (
talk)
16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
At one time, all Pokemon were considered notable too. If you want an
WP:SNG, propose one. We have draft space to develop articles. No article should ever come to mainspace that does not meet
WP:GNG. If I had found sufficient sourcing, I would have draftifyed it. I didn't. Take your aspersions and shove them up your ass.
John from Idegon (
talk)
17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Sublime
Coolabahapple}. The most graphic interaction that has been stimulated by a WP library article? Lower tone guys. There is a serious point at the core of this, hence why there are no votes yet (and this will need re-listing), about WP policy re these networks that may be needed. The actions of liabaries don't make front page news (per normal GNG), but doesn't mean that the significance of the networks should not be recorded. The amount of existing articles on equivalent networks might imply that the WP community does have a leaning in this direction (same example as per WP:PORNBIO, which makes up for lack of GNG). Pinging
DGG and
PamD for expertise.
Britishfinance (
talk)
14:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep We have always counted county (and similar) library systems as notable-- I cannot immediately think of any exception; we have however usually not counted those of individual towns, though there has sometimes been disagreement. The question, as usual here, depends on what we consider a substantial reference and what a mere notice. We are usually quite tolerant of that for important community institutions. The terms in the GNG are general, and need to be interpeted in individual cases, and how they interpret them is up to the community. And even more fundamentally, the GNG, of course, is a guideline, and not only do all guidelines intrinsically permit exceptions, but this particular one makes a point of saying so at the top. The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and by includingthe systems but not the individual libraries we are meeting that policy. DGG (
talk )
18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Re-visiting this after a while away. I think we really need to get around to making a
WP:NLIBRARY once and for all, because this is one of dozens of examples of library systems getting called to AfD, and so far I can't think of any that have failed. I agree with with DGG wrote on the matter and list it as the reason for my vote.
SEMMENDINGER (
talk)
01:39, 26 February 2019 (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.
Biography of a person notable only as a city councillor, not adequately referenced for the purposes of getting him over
WP:NPOL #2. Dayton OH is not a
global city for the purposes of getting the "city councillors are inherently notable" pass, so the inclusion test he would have to pass is that he could be referenced and substanced well enough to mark him out as special -- but the article literally just states that he existed as a city councillor, the end, and the four footnotes aren't doing a strong job of actually getting him over
WP:GNG. The New York Times source is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that's primarily about somebody else; the Jet source is a 54-word blurb that isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself; and the Dayton Daily News is the local newspaper where some coverage of Dayton's city councillors would simply be expected to exist. Feature Writing for Newspapers, meanwhile, links to a generic directory profile for the book rather than a readable PDF copy of the book, so I'm unable to verify whether there's any genuinely substantive content about him in it or not — but it appears to be a journalism textbook, so if there is content about him in it then it's likely to be an existing news article from another source being annotated as an example of journalistic structure, rather than core content actually written by the book's author that would have any direct bearing on Crawford's notability in its own right. All of which means that this isn't enough sourcing to get him over the bar -- GNG does not just count up the number of sources that mention a person's name and keep everything that meets or exceeds two, but also applies depth and range and context tests that these sources aren't passing.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Hm, this one's a little less cut-and-dried. He was the first black city commissioner. He's got a park named after him. This one might be borderline notable.
valereee (
talk)
18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Ugh, and he's also in the "Notable Kentucky African Americans" database at UK. Groan. Dayton City Commissioners are not really one of my research or writing interests lol. Why don't we have a persons-of-color deletion sorting list?
valereee (
talk)
19:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
That certainly may help if he can be shown to have received a lot more media coverage for it than just the weaksauce stuff present here, but being the first member of an underrepresented group to hold a city council seat in his own city (but not simultaneously the first person ever to do it in the entire country) is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie that would exempt him from still having to have better sources than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per profile in Jet Magazine (
https://books.google.com/books?id=mbkDAAAAMBAJ, November 18, 1965). The article is entitled "Hot Mayoral Races in Two Other Ohio Cities," and includes about two full pages of text about the 1965 election. There is also a blurb about Crawford in Jet when he resigned from the Commission to be the Commission clerk. --
Enos733 (
talk)
06:04, 7 February 2019 (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.